Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKERin. the Chair.

PROLETARIAN SCHOOLS.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: I beg to present a Petition on behalf of the National Citizens' Union, deploring the existence and rapid growth of Proletarian Sunday Schools, and urging the necessity of taking immediate steps to deal with the Communist movement.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL,

"to confer powers on the Caledonian Railway Company for the acquisition of land and the maintenance of an hotel and a golf course at Gleneagles, in the County of Perth," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

Ebbw Vale Urban District Council Bill,

Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield Tramways and Electricity Board Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Greenock Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Wallasey Embankment Bill (by Order) (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

PUBLIC SERVICES (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will state what steps he proposes to take about the Royal Commission on Indian Services now that the Assembly at Delhi has refused to pass the Vote for their expenses; and whether he proposes to charge it now to this country?

Mr. LANSBURY: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Legislative Assembly of India has refused to vote £20,000 for the expenses of a Royal Commission proposed to be set up by the Secretary of State to consider the grievances of the India Service; can he say whether this proposed Commission was suggested by the Viceroy or has it been imposed upon India by the India Office; whether the Viceroy, in spite of the rejection of the amount in question by the Legislative Assembly, has, by the exercise of his
powers, restored the amount to the Budget, and will the House of Commons have an opportunity of discussing this matter before the Viceroy's action becomes operative?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The Government of India, acting under the powers conferred upon them by Subsection (7) of Section 67A of the Government of India Act, have restored the provision for the expenses of the Royal Commission. The restoration of the Vote in question was not the personal action of the Viceroy, but was decided upon by the Governor-General in Council in exercise of powers expressly conferred by the Government of India Act and has already become operative. The last part. of the question of the hon. Member for Poplar does not therefore arise. As regards the second part of his question, I would refer him to the debates in the Council of State and the Legislative Assembly on the 25th and 26th January, and which show that the Government of India agree as to the necessity for the inquiry.

Mr. LANSBURY: Did the proposal to appoint a Royal Commission originate with the Secretary of State?

Earl WINTERTON: I did not think that we are asked to say whether or not the decision of the Viceroy in Council was taken as a result of representations made to him by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State and the Governor in Council are in complete agreement over the matter.

DR. M'GOVERN (INTERNMENT IN LHASA).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the report that. Dr. M'Govern has been interned in Lhasa; whether this gentleman proceeded to Lhasa without the knowledge and permission of the Indian Government; and whether his internment is due to representations from the Government of India or to the action of the Dalai Lama and his council?

Earl WINTERTON: Dr. M'Govern proceeded to Lhasa against the wishes of the Tibetan Government, without the knowledge of permission of the Government of India, and in contravention of
the frontier regulations. I have seen a newspaper report to the effect that he is ill and is practically a prisoner in his House at Lhasa, but I have no reason to suppose that he is in any sense "interned" or that any obstacle will be placed in the way of his return to India.

CIVIL SERVICES.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if the Secretary of State has now come to a decision in his consideration of the question of giving come immediate interim relief to the European Government. servants in the various Indian Civil Services to help them in their financial difficulties, owing to the rise in the cost of living and the fall in exchange, pending the Report of the Royal Commission now about to be appointed to consider the financial conditions of service?

Earl WINTERTON: I regret that I cannot at present add anything to the replies which. I gave to the questions put. to me by the hon. and gallant Member on the 26th February. and by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks on the 19th March.

Sir C. YATE: Will the Noble Lord be able to tell us anything when we meet again after Easter?

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is the Noble Lord aware of the serious embarrassments which civil servants in India are suffering in the meantime?

Earl WINTERTON: My hon. Friend knows that I have answered that question on previous occasions. In answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Sir C. Fate), I do not know whether I shall be in a position to make an announcement when we meet. after Easter.

Captain HUDSON: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in fixing the rates of pay for Indian services in 1919, the Government were guided by the rate of exchange current at that time; and, if so, in view of the depreciation in the value of the rupee, will he consider raising these rates accordingly?

Earl WINTERTON: The rise which had taken place in the exchange value of the rupee was one of the factors taken into consideration in fixing the revised scales
of pay in 1919, but this must not be taken to imply that it was expected that the exceptionally high rates of exchange then prevailing would be maintained. The matter is one which will no doubt be fully considered by the Royal Commission.

PRISONERS (RELEASE).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Devadas Gandhi, who was released from gaol in the United Provinces by the Common Order on 29th January, has been busy in Calcutta since his release organising a hartal to celebrate the incarceration of his father; and whether it is proposed to take, any action to deal with this man, in view of his seditious activities since his release?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no information as to this person's doings in Calcutta. If they are seditious, I have no doubt that the local authorities, whose duty it is, will take such action as is necessary. I would point out that there was no common general release of prisoners in the United Provinces. Certain prisoners only were released.

Viscount CURZON: Why was this particular man released?

Earl WINTERTON: Because he came within the class of persons who were released at the time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can yet say how many political prisoners, similar in status to those recently released in the United Provinces of Agra and of Oudh, are at present in prison in each of the other eight major provinces?

Earl WINTERTON: As I have explained on a previous occasion to the hon. and gallant Member, I am unable to accept the term "political prisoners" as a correct one. I have no information as to the number of prisoners for offences of a political character of the status in question, but I have made inquiry by cable of the Government of India.

ENGLISH CHILD (ADOPTION IN MADRAS).

Mr. BECKER: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether Doris Hawker, an English girl, aged
seven years, is still with her Eurasian foster-parents or has she been removed to the European quarter of Madras; and if it is the intention of the Madras authorities to return the child to England?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of Madras report that Doris Hawker is no longer in the charge of the family to whom she was originally sent and that arrangements are being made to place her in a home in the Nilgiri Hills pending further inquiry in this country. The inquiry is now proceeding.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the child now with English guardians?

Earl WINTERTON: I am making inquiries by telegram, but the telegram from the Government of Madras states that she has been placed in this home, and I have no doubt that the arrangements are wholly satisfactory.

Mr. BECKER: Are there any other cases of little girls like this having been sent out to India in the same way or is this the only case?

Earl WINTERTON: This is the only case that has been brought to my notice.

SALT TAX.

Mr. LANSBURY: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received information that the Legislative Assembly in India has rejected a proposal to double the Salt Tax; if it is proposed that the Viceroy shall certify this proposal in order that the tax shall he imposed: and will he say whether this House will have an opportunity of discussing this matter before any action that may be taken by the Viceroy becomes operative?

Mr. TREVELYAN: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Viceroy- of India. has decided to certify the Finance Bill with the Clauses imposing an increased salt duty which were rejected by the Legislative Assembly?

Earl WINTERTON: I would ask for the indulgence of the House in giving a somewhat detailed answer to this important subject.
On the 20th instant the Legislative Assembly rejected the Clause in the Finance Bill proposing that the salt tax should be increased from Rupee 1 Annas 4
to Rupee 2 Annas 8 per maund of 82 lbs. The Bill was considered by the Council of State on the 23rd instant, with a recommendation from the Governor-General under Section 67 13 of the Government of India Act that the Clause enhancing the salt duty should be reinserted. This was carried by 28 votes to 10. A similar recommendation is today before the Legislative Assembly, who thus have the opportunity of reconsidering their vote of the 20th. In the event of their passing the Bill in the form recommended no question of certification will arise. In the event of the Assembly not accepting the Bill as passed in the Council of State, the question of certification by the Governor-General may arise. Ordinarily a Bill certified under the procedure laid down by Statute does not have effect until it has received His Majesty's assent, and may not. be presented for His Majesty's assent until copies have been laid before each House of Parliament for not less than eight days on which that House has sat. But provision exists under which in special cases the Governor-General may direct that a Bill dealt with under certificate procedure shall come into operation forthwith. The decision on this point is vested in the Governor-General and, seeing that the Bill is actually to-day under consideration of the Legislative Assembly, I am not prepared to anticipate the decision that the Governor-General may feel called upon to take in the event of the Assembly rejecting the Clause enhancing the salt duty.

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: What increase in price will this amount to per lb of salt?

Earl WINTERTON: That is a matter which will require consideration. I cannot say offhand, but I do not believe that it. will be a large amount.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In case the Government of India adopt the very exceptional procedure of certifying the increase without the Act coming before this House prior to its becoming law, should we have at some time or other an opportunity of discussing the action of the Governor-General?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical Question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Question is on the Paper. The Noble Lord referred particularly to this special action which might be taken. Will the House be consulted or not?

Earl WINTERTON: I can give no such promise. For one thing, the decision for or against certification may be taken to-day. It is clearly impossible to hold up the Finance Bill, in whatever -form it passes the Assembly, pending a discussion in this House.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does the Noble Lord think that the proposed action of the Viceroy in certifying legislation without. any reference to this House, and in defiance of the Legislative Assembly, will tend to pacify the people of India?

Mr. SPEAKER: That. is a matter for debate.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is there any reason for describing as an exceptional course a procedure which is sanctioned by the Reform Act of India and is provided for in the rules drawn up by the Committee on Indian affairs?

Earl WINTERTON: This particular course is provided for under the rules and in the Government of India Act which has come into operation.

POLICE PENSIONS.

Captain HUDSON: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the maximum ordinary pension of a European officer after 30 years' service in the Indian police was fixed at £500 in 1862, and that pension is now £525, an increase of five per cent.; and whether, as the cost of living in England is now 100 per cent. greater than in 1862, and was, on 1st January, 1923, 78 per cent. above that of July, 1914, any steps will be taken to remedy this hardship?

Earl WINTERTON: Under the Rules of 1863, to which my hon. and gallant Friend presumably refers, the maximum ordinary pension was fixed at Rs.5,000, this rupee pension, if drawn in England, being converted into sterling at the rate of exchange annually fixed for the adjustment of transactions between the British and Indian Exchequers. The maximum is now Rs.6,000, exchanged at a fixed minimum rate of 1s. 9d., which is at the moment higher than the market rate.
The Royal Commission which is to investigate the terms of employment of the superior civil services in India will no doubt consider the adequacy of their pensions.

ANDAMAN ISLANDS (PENAL SETTLEMENT).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the penal station in the Andaman Islands is now being used as a convict station, although it was closed down by his predecessor as a result of the Prisons Report on the conditions prevailing there?

Earl WINTERTON: The decision to abandon the Andamans as a penal settlement was arrived at with the approval of the late Secretary of State, but it was found impracticable to give complete effect to this decision until alternative accommodation had been constructed in India to accommodate not only those convicts who were to be repatriated from the Andamans, but those who were to be transported to them. It was therefore decided also, with the approval of the late Secretary of State, temporarily to reopen transportation to the settlement, except for certain classes of prisoners. The matter was explained fully in the Council of State on the 17th January of last year. I send the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the statement then made on the subject by the Government of India, if he requires it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Noble Lord read the report of the Prison Commission on the Andaman Islands, and can we now have that report published for the information of Members?

Earl WINTERTON: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I read very carefully every word of it in the train the other day. As to the publishing of the report, I will consult my Noble Friend the Secretary of State to find out whether that course is feasible.

Sir C. YATE: Are not the Andaman Islands about the most convenient place possible for internment?

BENGAL PILOT SERVICE (PENSIONS).

Sir C. YATE: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what decision has been arrived at as a result of the reference to the Government of India regarding the question of applying the increased pen-
sion rates in the case of officers of the Bengal Pilot Service who retired before the 1st December, 1919; and whether there is any reason why these officers of the Bengal Pilot Service should riot be placed on the same footing as the officers of other Indian services to whom the date of 23rd July, 1913, is applicable?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India recommended that no concession should be granted, mainly on the ground that the earnings of the pilots before the War had been on a liberal scale, and that the Public Service Commission had held that the service was adequately remunerated as regards both pay and pension. The Secretary of State in Council has accepted the recommendation of the Government of India.

Sir C. YATE: Can the Noble Lord not put these pilots on the same footing as other civil servants?

Earl WINTERTON: I have looked carefully into the question, and I do not think the pilots are on the same footing. Their earnings before the War were higher than those of other services, and it is difficult to get a fair comparison.

TRADE COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. HANNON: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the great services rendered in the past to importing houses by the Indian Trade Commissioners' Office in London, His Majesty's Government will make representations to the Indian Legislature urging its reestablishment?

Earl WINTERTON: The matter is one within the discretion of the Government of India, to whom I am forwarding a copy of my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. HANNON: I hope the Noble Lord realises the importance of the matter.

Mr. HANNON: 34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has come to a decision to appoint two additional trade commissioners in India at Bombay and Calcutta; and, if so, if he will state the names of the gentlemen selected and the approximate date on which they will take up their duties?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's ques-
tion is in the affirmative. I hope very shortly to be able to announce the names of the gentlemen selected and the date on which they will take up their duties.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PIT PONIES.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 16.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is satisfied that existing legislation gives him adequate powers to provide for the proper working and living conditions of all ponies used in mines; whether his present system of inspection is adequate to secure humane treatment in all cases; and, if not, will he seek further powers S.) as to fully protect these animals?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): I have no reason to think that existing legislation gives me inadequate powers as regards the care and treatment of pit ponies. Close check on the observance of the statutory requirements is exercised by the Mines Inspectorate, and they are reported to be generally well observed. But it is, of course, impossible by any system of inspection to prevent occasional instances of cruelty to or neglect of animals, and it would be very helpful if specific instances of inhumane treatment were promptly notified to the inspectors.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the Secretary for Mines tell us whether there is any register of the number of shifts worked by the ponies in the mines; and is the number of inspectors now employed anything like adequate to inspect, the registers, even where such registers are kept?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: The number of inspectors arises on a later question. I think that a register is kept, but I will inquire.

Major PAGET: Is it not a fact that the number of prosecutions in connection with pit ponies has gone down in the last few years, and that such cases are now practically non-existent?

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Is it possible for -the Government to allow inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to visit the mines, in view of the inadequate number of official Government inspectors?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: If the inspectors are adequate, as they ought to be, it is not necessary for any other body to take part in the inspection. With regard to the other question, since I have been in office I have instituted a number of prosecutions, and I do not think that the number has gone down.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that the mines inspectors consider that it is no part of their duty to inspect pit ponies, and that there are only eight inspectors for the whole of the United Kingdom?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: It is entirely incorrect to say that it is not part of their duty to inspect the ponies. It is a thing that we are constantly urging upon them. There are eight inspectors whose special duty it is to inspect pit ponies.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In regard to the inadequacy of the inspection, could the House be told how many times a year, on the average, the inspectors visit any particular mine?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. T. SMITH: 17.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that in many collieries ponies work very long hours; and will he introduce legislation to amend the Coal Mines Act, so as to stipulate the maximum number of hours that a pony shall work underground out of the 24 hours?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: L: A special inquiry in regard to the working hours of pit ponies was made by the Inspector of Mines in 1921, and showed that the reduction in the hours of the men which was brought about by the Coal Mines Act, 1919, resulted almost universally in a corresponding reduction in the working hours of the pit ponies, and that generally these hours were short. I am not aware that these conditions have changed, but I will certainly make further inquiry, and it will help me if hon. Members opposite who have any definite information will send it to me.

Mr. SMITH: 19.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many inspectors there are whose duty it is to examine into the care and treatment of horses and other
animals used in mires, and the approximate number of mines under their supervision?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: This forms part of the duty of all but one or two inspectors of mines, of whom there are 86. Of these, eight are specially qualified inspectors of horses in mines, who devote their whole time to horse inspection. The number of mines at which horses were employed in 1922 was 1,695.

Mr. SMITH: If is is a fact that there are only eight inspectors whose duty it is to look after the care of pit ponies, is the Secretary for Mines aware that it is absolutely impossible for that number to inspect the pits and look after the ponies as they ought to do?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I do not agree that that is so.

SAFETY APPLIANCES.

Mr. PALING: 20.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether adequate facilities exist. to test the numerous mechanical inventions constantly being brought to his notice, and whose inventors claim that the adoption of such appliances would tend to materially reduce the number of accidents in mines, and particularly those relating to the prevention of pit-cage accidents due to broken winding-ropes?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: The only satisfactory way of testing such inventions, if on examination they appear to meet a real need in a practical way, is to put them into regular use at mines, and this is constantly being done by owners and managers. As regards cage-arresting devices, however, the Technical Appliances Committee, who have considered all the numerous devices which have been brought to my notice, advise me that nearly all of them display such an ignorance of the dynamics of the problem as to be quite useless. The Committee record that they see no reason to depart from the finding of the Royal Commission on Mines in 1909, which was to the effect that it is much better to rely on good material and careful periodical examination than to employ safeguards which can only be considered of doubtful value.

Mr. PALING: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are numbers of these inventors who claim to have these mechanical inventions, and that they are
complaining continually that when they apply to the Secretary for Mines they have simply the notification acknowledging receipt of their letters, but that they get no chance of testing their inventions? I am continually being approached by people with complaints of this description.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the advisability of providing facilities whereby demonstrations can be given to his technical advisers of life-saving appliances, and will he in future guarantee that the House shall from time to time have the benefit of these demonstrations?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I cannot guarantee that the House will have practical demonstrations, because that would be impossible; but I can say that all these inventions arc very carefully gone into by the best scientific people whom we can get to go into them. It is a very dangerous thing for a Department to sanction the use of any particular invention without being sure that it is absolutely reliable.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that every passenger lift working in London or any other city has an appliance fixed underneath the cage; and could not similar appliances be affixed to pit cages?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate the matter now.

PIT-HEAD BATHS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 21.
asked the Secretary foo Mines how many colliery companies in Great Britain have established pit-head baths under Section 77 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1911; how many colliery companies have established pit-head baths voluntarily; and in how many cases are pit-head baths to be erected under the miners' welfare scheme?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: There are 11 installations of pit-head baths for workmen, and all of them, I believe, have been established voluntarily. Grants in respect of four installations have been made from the Miners' Welfare Fund. I cannot say what further applications for grants for this purpose will be made to the Miners' Welfare Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of that answer indicating the possibilities of Section 77, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the advisability of revising the Coal Mines Regulation Act so as to make pit-head baths possible wherever people express a willingness and desire for them?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I am quite prepared to discuss the question if the hon. Member will communicate with me about it.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Are these baths made full use of where they are established?

ACCIDENTS.

Mr. WHITELEY: 22.
asked the Secretary for Mines what number of expert timbermen are now employed in Durham County and at what particular collieries; what reports have been received in his Department showing accidents to be caused through carelessness on the part of the hewers in Durham County; and what is the number of decisions in Coroners' Courts indicating neglect on the part of the workmen where fatal accidents have occurred in Durham County?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I am sorry that I cannot at such short notice give any statistical information on these points. I will see what figures I can obtain in respect of the first two parts of the question, but I have no reason to suppose that more accidents are caused through carelessness on the part of the hewers in Durham than elsewhere. As regards the third part, statistics might, I think, he misleading. Lack of care on the part of the victim of an accident is not necessarily recorded in the finding at the inquest.

Mr. LAWSON: 23.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the reprint of an article from, the "Iron and Coal Trades Review," sent. out by the secretary of the National Coalowners' Association, giving statements to the effect that 82 fatal accidents were reported during the past four weeks, and also giving instances where fatal accidents were said to have happened through negligence on the part of the person killed or some workman concerned; whether he can state if any of the divisional inspectors reported any such
eases; and whether his Department made any communication to the National Coal-owners' Association on this matter?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Reports on fatal accidents are made each week by the Divisional Inspectors, and information contained in them which may assist the "Safety First" movement is communicated to the technical press, without, of course, disclosing names of persons, collieries or places. Information thus communicated furnished the material of the article referred to in the "Iron and Coal Trades Review." I have had no communication with the Mining Association about it, but I am glad to learn that they are taking steps to give the widest possible publicity to information which may conduce to the greater safety of those employed in mines.

Mr. HARDIE: Will the Secretary of Mines consider the advisability of making compulsory the use of a projecting crown, coming out from the ordinary crown over to where the men are working?

Mr. LAWSON: In view of the fact that the information was given for the purposes of this article in the "Iron and Coal Trades Review," may we be informed if any information was given as to negligence on the part of the owners to carry out the rules, of which there are instances from time to time All the instances given here are instances of so-called negligence on the part of the workers.

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Information is given, as far as possible, in an absolutely unbiased form. The particular instances selected in this article seem to have been for the purpose of endeavouring to help the "Safety First" campaign.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.

STEAMSHIP "BADENIA."

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the steamship "Badenia," of the London and Cologne Steamship Company, Limited, of London, which sailed from Cologne on the 2nd instant, with all documents in order and carrying a cargo of about. 750 tons of goods destined to the United Kingdom, was stopped by the Franco-Belgian authorities at Ruhrort, Duisburg, and
ordered back to Cologne; that the steamship company have made every endeavour to get this boat and the goods she was carrying released; that a cable from the Cologne agents, received on 12th March, stated that there was no hope of getting the boat or the goods away and that the cargo had been discharged; and, if so, will he take steps immediately to secure the release of this steamship and the goods, and at the same time warn the Franco-Belgian authorities not to interfere in this unwarrantable manner with ships carrying British-owned goods?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): His Majesty's High Commissioner reported on 15th March that a representative of the London and Cologne Steamship Company has obtained from the Customs authorities at Ruhrort a written statement that the "Badenia" would be allowed to pass with her original cargo. I may add that I have this morning ascertained that the vessel is now unloading in the Thames.

Mr. SHINWELL: Has the hon. Gentleman made inquiries with regard to the delay in releasing this vessel?

Mr. McNEILL: We made many inquiries before we got the release.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not time the Government told the Franco-Belgian authorities to stop meddling with British affairs?

Mr. DARBISHIRE: Can we have an assurance that this will be the last instance of interference with our trade?

Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid I could not give any such absolute assurance, but I can state that everything possible is being done to avoid a recurrence of such incidents.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Who is going to reimburse the traders concerned for the cost of discharging and reloading this cargo?

BRITISH TRADE.

Captain W. BENN: 40.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can give, for any convenient period, the figures showing the volume, inward and outward, of British trade with the occupied territory
of Germany and passing through the occupied territory to unoccupied Germany?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I regret that I am unable to furnish the details desired by the hon. and gallant Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

POLAND AND EASTERN GALICIA.

Mr. J. BUTLER: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the nature and degree of autonomy to be enjoyed by the inhabitants of Eastern Galicia have been left by the Ambassadors' Conference to the discretion of the Polish Government; if so, what guarantees have been given that these will be adequate; and, if not, with whom will it lie to decide whether the measures of autonomy to be proposed by the Polish Government are, in fact, adequate?

Mr. McNEILL: I have already explained the position as regards autonomy-and the question of guarantees in my answer given on 21st March to a question by the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain), to which I have nothing to add.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether the scheme of autonomy for Eastern Galicia, which is to be the condition of the Galician settlement., will be submitted to and approved by the Ambassadors' Conference before the settlement becomes final?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): The grant of autonomy to Eastern Galicia by the Polish Government is part of the settlement, but that Government will not be required to furnish details of any particular scheme to the Ambassadors Conference.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the Government have taken no steps to see that this autonomy, which is part of the agreement, is not a matter of mere form?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, they have taken the steps directly embodied in the agreement.

GERMAN REPARATION DUTIES.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs if, in view of the fact that goods consigned from Germany to the United Kingdom arc taxed 26 per cent.ad valorem on importation into this country, such tax being recoverable from the German Government, and that similar goods consigned from Germany to either France or Belgium are not taxed in a like manner, although both countries have the power under the Peace Treaty to levy such a duty, he is prepared to make representations to the Franco-Belgian authorities to waive the 10 per cent. tax they are at present. levying on all goods passing through their Customs barriers in the territories they are occupying?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Before the occupation of the Ruhr, exports from Germany to this country were subject to the German export duty as well as the Reparation levy here. The fact that export duty is now collected by the Franco-Belgian authorities, instead of by the Germans, does not appear to be a reason for exempting the goods from the occupied territory either from the levy or export duty.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the French and Belgians do not tax themselves to this extent; and will he consider repealing this 26 per cent. tax so as to put us on the same footing as the French and Belgians?

Captain W. BENN: 39.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the German Government has given notice that it will not reimburse the German reparation recovery duties collected on German imports into Great Britain; and, if so, whether it is intended to continue to collect these duties?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I have seen statements of such an intention as far as concerns goods exported under a licence obtained from the Franco-Belgian authorities in the occupied territories, but I am not aware that an official announcement to this effect has been issued by the German Government.' There is no present intention of discontinuing the collection of the reparation levy, and if the hon. and gallant Member knows of any case in which the British Customs receipt for the levy has been
presented and reimbursement refused by the German Government I should be glad if he would send me full particulars.

Captain BENN: Can it be that the Department is not aware that the German Government for some time has been refusing to reimburse, and if that be so, who pays the levies? Is it the British trader?

TURKEY.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the importance of the Conference now being held in London to discuss the Turkish counter-proposals for a Near East peace and the grave issues involved in these discussions. His Majesty's Government will reconsider its decision to conduct the deliberations of the Conference in secrecy?

The PRIME MINISTER: Inasmuch as the Conference in London is one of Allied experts who have assembled in order to discuss in a preliminary and informal way the counter-proposals put forward by the Turks, the very worst step that could be taken in the interests of settlement would be to give premature publicity to their proceedings. This was the unanimous view of the assembled delegates.

Mr. BUXTON: Is it not a fact that the French Government has intimated its opinion that the Press should be admitted to the Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not heard of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

NAVAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the fact that the temporary Mixed Armaments Commission of the League of Nations has adopted a Resolution, urging that all States, whether members of the League or not, should be invited to the forthcoming naval conference; and whether the British representative on the Council of the League will be instructed to urge that the invitation to the conference be extended to all States, whether members of the League or not?

Mr. J. BUTLER: 61.
asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to summon the naval conference, to be held under the auspices of the League of Nations, for the extension of the principles of the Washington Naval Agreement to other Powers non-signatory thereto; whether the British representative will be instructed to urge at the next meeting of the Council that this conference shall be summoned with the least possible delay; and whether the British representative will be instructed to press for invitations being extended to all naval States not members of the League, including Russia, in accordance with the recommendation made by the Assembly at its last session?

Mr. McNEILL: I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) on the 21st instant to the decision taken by the League of Nations to summon a naval conference at Geneva shortly after the Pan-American Conference to be held at Santiago on the 25th instant. It would be premature to take any steps for the extension of the principles of the Washington Naval Treaty until that instrument has been ratified by all the original signatories.

RUHR OCCUPATION,

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 64.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give instructions to the British delegates to raise the question of the Ruhr dispute at the next meeting of the Council of the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the answer which I gave on Thursday last to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn).

SMYRNA-AIDIN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply to the representations of His Majesty's Government to the Greek Government in order to secure payment of the admitted claim of £49,000 sterling due to the Smyrna-Aidin Railway Company has yet been received; and, if so, what is the nature of the reply?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's representative at Athens is pressing for the
early payment of the claim. On the receipt of the Greek Government's reply the company will be informed.

Mr. DOYLE: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that damage, estimated at not less than £200,000 sterling, was caused to the Smyrna-Aidin Railway by the Greeks during their retreat last autumn; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will take the present opportunity of taking up this question with Monsieur Venizelos with a view to securing adequate compensation?

Mr. McNEILL: It is understood that a certain amount. of damage was caused to the Smyrna-Aidin Railway during the retreat of the Greeks last autumn, and His Majesty's Government will be ready to take up with the Greek Government the question of compensation to the company at the opportune moment, in so far as His Majesty's Government may be satisfied that the Greek Government is responsible.

Mr. DOYLE: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a claim was made on behalf of the Smyrna-Aidin Railway, under Article 287 of the Treaty of Sevres, in respect of the period which has elapsed since 1918, during which the company has not been in full control of its system and has suffered severe material losses; and, if so, what steps it is now proposed to take to compensate the company for this period, in view of the fact that the Treaty of Sevres has not been ratified?

Mr. McNEILL: The Treaty of Sevres, as the hon. Member is aware, was never ratified and is to be replaced by a new Treaty now in process of negotiation. The question of compensation to the Smyrna-Aidin Railway Company for the period mentioned, as also that during the War, is receiving consideration in connection with the present negotiations.

Mr. DOYLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the last occasion I put a question on this subject he referred me to a Blue Book; and will he be kind enough to tell me now what Blue Book and what page?

Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid that I should have to refresh my memory before giving the hon. Member the information he desires.

BRITISH CONSULAR REPORTS.

Mr. HANNON: 32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the wide interest attaching to the working of British Consulates abroad, he could arrange for the publication of the periodical reports of the inspectors of Consulates?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I do not think it would he desirable to publish these documents, having regard to the detailed and technical character of these reports, to which great importance is attached as a means of maintaining and improving the efficiency of the Consular Service.

Mr. HANNON: Is there not a great deal of information in these reports which would be of general value?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: No, Sir.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 35.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if the Overseas Committee over which he now presides will give special consideration to furthering the work of the Salvation Army's migration efforts by allowing such work to come within the scope of the Empire Settlement Act?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Yes. Sir; the Oversea Settlement Committee are at present negotiating schemes under the Act with the Salvation Army.

Colonel MAURICE ALEXANDER: 36.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade. Department how many people of British stock have left the British Isles during the last 50 years for the British Dominions, and how many for places outside the British Empire?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the permission of the hon. and gallant Member, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The number of British subjects recorded as having left the United Kingdom 50 years, 1873 to 1922, was 11,372,384. Of for countries outside Europe during the
these 5,294,655 were going to countries within the British Empire, and 5,982,076 to foreign countries. During the same period 5,508,314 British subjects arrived in the United Kingdom from countries outside Europe, namely, 2,336,267 from British Dominions and 3,002,282 from foreign countries. These figures show an excess outwards of 2,958,388 to British Empire countries and 2,979,794 to foreign countries. In addition to the numbers shown above as travelling to and from British countries and to and from foreign countries, the records for the first 20 years of the period under consideration show 95,653 persons as leaving for and 169,765 persons as arriving from places not sufficiently defined for classification under one or other of these heads.

Mr. PETO: 38.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will consider the establishment of training camps in this country in order to train bodies of urban unemployed in simple agricultural operations and fit them for overseas agricultural life?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The question raised by my hon. Friend is one which has previously received consideration by the Oversea Settlement Committee. I shall be glad to give it my attention. I understand, however, that it is generally held in the Dominions that agricultural training (except in the case of juveniles) can he more effectively given overseas than in this country.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the Salvation Army the only organisation which is to be allowed to participate in the scheme?

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does no( arise on this question.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Does the scheme provide for training on the other side? Has that been suggested to or considered by the Oversea Committee?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Yes, it is under consideration now.

Mr. PETO: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind the importance of not depleting our rural labour?

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if the Department )f Overseas Trade is to take over the work of the Overseas Settlement Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: It has been decided that the Parliamentary Secretary for Overseas Trade should become Chairman of the Overseas Settlement Committee and be charged under the Secretary of State for the Colonies with the conduct of oversea settlement business. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies will remain a member of the Committee.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary would have power to reduce the Committee if he found the numbers too many?

The PRIME MINISTER: He would arrange that, I have no doubt, with my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

BRITISH CAPITAL (INVESTMENTS ABROAD).

Colonel M. ALEXANDER: 37.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Oversea Trade Department how much capital has been invested by this country for the last 50 years in the British Dominions; how much in each Dominion: and how much capital for the same period in foreign countries?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I regret that I am not in possession of information which would enable me to give the desired particulars, and I am not aware of any source from which the particulars could be obtained.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

DEPUTATION TO PRIME MINISTER.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, before receiving, with the Prime Minister, on Friday last, a deputation from the National Farmers' Union, the National Union of Agricultural Workers, and the agricultural section of the Workers' Union, he ascertained the views of or conferred with the Agricultural Commission now sitting?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): The answer is in the negative. As I stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) on the 6th instant, the Tribunal of Inquiry are making every effort to present an early report, but are not yet in a posi-
tion to name a date. It would, I think, be obviously undesirable to endeavour to ascertain the views of the tribunal before the members have thoroughly considered the questions which were referred to them.

Mr. GRAY: Having regard to the emphatic statement made by the Prime Minister on the occasion referred to can an inquiry now serve any useful purpose whatsoever?

Sir R. SANDERS: Oh, I hope so.

EGGS (IMPORTATION FROM CHINA).

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of long hundreds of eggs imported from China during the years 1913, 1921, and 1922, respectively?

Sir R. SANDERS: The numbers of great hundreds of eggs imported into the United Kingdom from China were: in 1913, 2,500; in 1921, 468,000; and in 1922, 1,057,000.

Mr. SIMPSON: Does this include eggs not in shells, as well as eggs in shells?

Sir R. SANDERS: It is eggs in shells.

Mr. BECKER: What is a "long" hundred, and what is the difference between a "long" hundred and a "short" hundred?

Sir R. SANDERS: A "long" hundred is 120.

CANADIAN CATTLE.

Mr. SIMPSON: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the report that 25,000 Canadian cattle are now en route to England; whether these cattle are being imported as stores or as fat; and whether, in the latter event, they will be liable to slaughter at the port of entry?

Sir R. SANDERS: The Ministry has no definite information to the effect that 25,000 Canadian cattle are en route to England. An approximate estimate of the number of cattle which may possibly come forward this spring has been put at from 10,000 to 25,000. The majority of these will probably be imported as "stores" under the provisions of the Importation of Animals Act, 1922. Cattle from Canada other than such stores will after 1st April be liable under existing Regulations to slaughter at the port of landing.

Mr. SIMPSON: Who is going to decide whether they are stores?

Sir R. SANDERS: Provided that cattle comply with the conditions laid down for stores in the Importation of Animals Act, they need not be slaughtered at the port. Our veterinary officer will inspect all animals on arrival and decide whether or not they can be treated as stores.

Mr. SIMPSON: Is it not a fact that, under the Act, if an animal is intended for feeding purposes, it comes in as a store, and how will the veterinary officer decide whether it is coming in for feeding purposes or not?

Mr. PRETYMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information has been broadcast that the first cargo of cattle which are coming are fat cattle consigned to a butcher, and will he say whether these animals will be slaughtered at the port of arrival, or whether they will be consigned to any market in the United Kingdom?

Sir R. SANDERS: I have just stated that it. is for the veterinary officer to decide at the port. I have not heard of the cargo of fat cattle mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.

Colonel M. ALEXANDER: As both the question and the answer appear to refer to Canadian cattle en route to England, can the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures of cattle which are en route to Scotland?

Mr. SIMPSON: 68.
further asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any pledge or promise has been made to the Canadian Government on the subject of the importation from Canada into Great Britain of breeding cattle, as distinct from store cattle; and, if so, whether he will acquaint this House with the terms of that pledge or promise and inform the House when it was made?

Sir R. SANDERS: At the Conference with the Canadian representatives in October last, my predecessor promised to make provision in the proposed Importation of Animals Bill for the entry of breeding cattle from Canada into Great Britain. An agreed statement of the results of the Conference was issued in the Press on the 4th November, 1922, and included an announcement to the effect that the landing of Canadian cattle
capable of breeding would require the authority of a general Order which would be made by the Minister of Agriculture and laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament. I would remind the hon. Member that this House assented to the undertaking referred to when it passed Section (2) of the Importation of Animals Act, in December last.

Dr. CHAPPLE: Is it proposed to include Australia and New Zealand in this privilege?

Sir R. SANDERS: Not under that Act.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: What will be the attitude of the Government towards a project for dealing a final blow to agriculture?

Mr. PRETYMAN: 77.
asked the Minister of Agriculture under what authority he proposes to issue Orders admitting breeding stock from Canada to this country; and will he defer laying any such Orders in either House of Parliament until after the expected agricultural Debate in this House?

Sir R. SANDERS: In accordance with Section 2 of the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, I am proposing to lay a draft Order before both Houses of Parliament. Provided the expected agricultural Debate takes place on or about 11th April, the date at present suggested, I am willing to defer laying the Order until after that Debate.

NEGLECTED CULTIVATION.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of eases in which county agricultural committees have used their powers of dealing with farmers who arc neglecting the use of their.land or are injuring neighbouring farms by permitting weeds in excess?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am afraid it is not possible to give the information asked for by the hon. Member. The powers delegated to the agricultural committees are exercised without reference to the Ministry, except where it is necessary to spend public money in destroying the weeds. Such cases have been very few, since the service of a notice usually has the desired effect. Apart from ordering the destruction of certain injurious weeds, committees have no control over farmers who neglect their land.

WHEAT AND OATS.

Mr. SHORT: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the total number of acres of wheat and oats under cultivation in 1913, and for each year down to and including 1922?

Sir R. SANDERS: As the reply is in the form of a statistical statement, I propose, with the permission of the hon. Member, to circulate: it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The statement is as follows:

The area under wheat and oats in England and Wales in the years 1913 to 1922, as returned by occupiers of agricultural holdings exceeding one acre in extent, was as follows:

Wheat.
Oats.





Acres.
Acres.


1913
…
…
1,701,588
1,974,700


1914
…
…
1,807,498
1,929,626


1915
…
…
2,170,170
2,088,047


1916
…
…
1,912,208
2,084,674


1917
…
…
1,918,485
2,258,909


1918
…
…
2,556,661
2,780,063


1919
…
…
2,221,195
2,564,326


1920
…
…
1,874,652
2,271,703


1921
…
…
1,976,004
2,148,943


1922
…
…
1,966,917
2,163,965

CREDIT FACILITIES.

Mr. BLUNDELL: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Farmers' Land Purchase Company operates under conditions almost, exactly similar to those laid down in the Report of the Agricultural Credit. Committee; that this company is prepared to make. advances forthwith on the terms of the above Report provided that they receive an assurance from the Ministry that they will be recognised as an approved society subject to their complying with the terms of the Agricultural Credit Bill when introduced; and that a large number of farmers who purchased their farms between 1917 and 1921 are in great need of credit; and will he give an assurance to this company that it will be recognised as an approved society subject to its complying with the Regulations of the Ministry?

Sir R. SANDERS: The Report of the Agricultural Credit Committee, which has been approved by the Government, expressly contemplated the recognition
of the Farmers' Land Purchase Company as an approved society for the purpose of carrying out the Committee's proposals for loans to farmers who purchased their farms during the operation of the Corn Production Acts, provided that the company agreed to a limitation of its dividends. The Report of the Committee has been approved by the Government, who intend to introduce a Bill based on the Committee's recommendations. I have no doubt, therefore, that subject to its complying with the Regulations of the Treasury on the passing of the Bill, the company will be recognised as an approved society.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the company now, subject to their giving an undertaking to comply with the conditions?

Sir R. SANDERS: I cannot do that until the Bill has been passed.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to state the channel through which it is proposed to grant credit facilities to farmers, namely, whether through the existing banks, through co-operative credit societies not at present existing, or otherwise; and whether, in view of the urgency of farmers' needs, he will consider the former as being the most expeditious channel through which to operate?

Sir R. SANDERS: I would advise my hon. and gallant Friend to await the introduction of the Bill, but I can assure him that the suggestion contained in the latter part of his question will be carefully considered.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what is the considered recommendation of his Department on the subject?

Sir R. SANDERS: No, Sir, I could not say that.

HEAVY HORSE SOCIETIES (GRANTS).

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: 74.
asked the Minister of Agriculture under what circumstances two grants of £80 each in respect of the hire of stallions by the Colchester Heavy Horse Society were withheld after a definite promise had been given by the live-stock officer of the Ministry on 31st December, 1921, that such grants would he made; and whether
he is aware that, in consequence of the grants not being forthcoming, the Colchester Heavy Horse Society has been placed in a serious financial position and its further activities curtailed?

Sir R. SANDERS: In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure, the provision for live-stock improvement was reduced and the grants to Heavy Horse Societies had, therefore, to be withdrawn in 1922. Societies were warned in November, 1921, of this possibility, and the live-stock officer concerned has reported that he gave no undertaking as to the renewal of the grants. I much regret that it was necessary to withdraw these grants and any misunderstanding that may have arisen in this case.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that. the live-stock officer of the Ministry was actually present at the society's meeting at which this decision was taken to hire these horses, and that the decision was taken on the promise of the live-stock officer?

Sir R. SANDERS: No, Sir, I was not aware of that.

—
Regular Workers.
Casual Workers.
Total.


Males.
Women and Girls.
Males.
Women and Girls.


1913
…
…
508,000
43,000
78,000
22,000
651,000


1921
…
…
612,000
73,000
131,000
53,000
869,000

Note.—The figures for 1913 do not include members of the occupier's family; those for 1921 do not, include the occupier and his wife, but include all other members of the family working on the holding. Returns of the numbers of workers employed on agricultural holdings were not collected in 1920 or 1922.

WAGES DISPUTE.

Mr. N. BUXTON: 75.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, having regard to the reduction in wages of farm labourers proposed by the Farmers' Union, and to the fact that farm labourers in employment have in numerous instances to seek relief from the Poor Law, he will set up a Committee of inquiry, to report

ARABLE LAND (CULTIVATION).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 78.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of arable land were under cultivation in the years 1913, 1920, and 1922; how many acres are under cultivation at present; and how many workers were engaged on the land during the same years and at present?

Sir R. SANDERS: As the reply is in the form of a statistical statement, I propose, with the permission of the hon. Member, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The statement is as follows:

(a) Area of arable land in England and Wales, as returned by occupiers of agricultural holdings exceeding one acre in extent:


1913
…
…
…
11,058,233


1920
…
…
…
12,019,746


1922
…
…
…
11,310,515

Statistics for the present year will be collected on the 4th June.

(b) Numbers of workers employed on agricultural holdings of more than one acre in extent in England and Wales, as returned by the occupiers in June, 1913, and 1921:

at the earliest possible moment, on the question whether farmers on good land are justified by economic conditions in making these reductions?

Sir R. SANDERS: I do not think that an inquiry of the kind suggested would be of service in the present circumstances. I may say, however, that I have suggested to both sides in the Norfolk dispute that they should agree to accept the decision of an independent arbitrator appointed by the two sides jointly.

Mr. BUXTON: In view of that answer, I beg to give notice that, at the close of questions, I shall, Mr. Speaker, ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on matters connected with this question.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. BUXTON: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the danger of a disaster to British agriculture through the extension of the present strike, and the failure of the Government to use its influence with the Farmers' Union towards withdrawing the demand for a reduction of wages pending the holding of an official inquiry into the economic necessity for such reduction."

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a Motion which I can accept under Standing Order No. 10. There is no obligation on the Government to interfere in an industrial dispute. If I allowed this Motion in one case, it might be allowed in a good many others. I notice that my predecessor, on the 22nd July, 1912, gave a similar ruling in a similar case.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. STURROCK: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether this House will have an opportunity of discussing the agenda for the impending Imperial Conference before it is finally determined, so that Members may have an opportunity of putting forward suggestions?

The PRIME MINISTER: If there is a general desire for such discussion, I shall consider whether it will be possible to find time for it later in the Session.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to state whether a date has been fixed for the Imperial Economic Conference?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 66.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government of each Dominion has accepted the invitation to attend the Imperial and Economic Conference to be held this year; and whether he can state the names of the delegates who will represent each Dominion?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly as to the date of meeting of the Imperial Conference, and of the Imperial Economic Conference, but at present I
cannot add anything to the answers already given to my hon. Friends and to other hon. Members.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to invite the labour organisations to discuss this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, when they become the Government.

NAVAL BASE, SINGAPORE.

Mr. LAMBERT: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if the proposal for building a naval base at Singapore at a cost of £11,000,000 has been considered by the Army and Air staffs; if these staffs have approved; and, if so, the date of their respective approvals?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative. The General staff and Air staff, as well as the Naval staff, took part in the proceedings of the Committee of Imperial Defence on this subject and approved its recommendations. The date of the final recommendation of the Committee that the decision of the late Government be re-affirmed was 14th December, 1922.

Mr. LAMBERT: To what decision does the right hon. Gentleman refer?

The PRIME MINISTER: They decided in favour of a naval base.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if the men to be employed are Chinese or white men?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

FIGHTING SERVICES (CO-ORDINATION).

Mr. LAMBERT: 49.
asked the Prime Minister the names of the members of the Committee appointed to co-ordinate the activities of the fighting Services; when that Committee will sit; and when it may be expected to report?

The PRIME MINISTER: It. is not customary to give the names of members of sub-Committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I am glad to say, however, that Lord Balfour and Lord Weir have consented to join the Committee. With regard to the second part of the
question, the Committee has already held several meetings, but it is not yet possible to say when it will be able to report.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is not the Committee of Imperial Defence composed of the same gentlemen who have led us into this disastrous mess?

The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, no. They are quite different.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 41.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will inform the House as to the means to be adopted to finance the expenditure on the British Empire Exhibition over and above the amount guaranteed; and if he will assure the House that no suggestion of an increased Government guarantee in excess of £100,000 has or will be made?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I understand that the necessary arrangements have been made for providing the finance required until receipts from charges for exhibiting space, admission, etc., become available. With regard to the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on the 22nd March.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that. he did not reply to my question of 22nd March, and that, therefore, I put it down again?

Major Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the questions asked by the hon. Member opposite are doing a great deal of harm to this Exhibition?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member (Mr. Darbishire) is within his rights in putting a question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MID-SCOTLAND CANAL.

Mr. SHINWELL: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed by public bodies in Scotland to the proposed scheme for a Mid-Scotland ship canal; whether the scheme has been before the Admiralty and if any opinion on the scheme has been submitted by them; whether the Government is in a
position to state the estimated cost of a survey of the direct route; and if such a survey is contemplated?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. I am informed that this scheme has been considered on several occasions by the Admiralty, who reported that they were not prepared to advise the Government that the canal would be of sufficient strategic importance to justify Government expenditure on that ground under existing financial conditions. The cost of a survey of the direct route proposed for the canal was estimated in 1918 at about £25,000. As I stated in reply to a question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Mr. I'eto) on the 12th March, it is for the advocates of the canal to have any necessary survey of the route carried out.

Mr. SHINWELL: In view of the possibilities of such a canal from the point of view of commerce, trade, and the defence of the country, would it not he desirable for the Government to undertake the survey, and not leave it to private interests to undertake the task?

Colonel ASHLEY: In view of the considered opinion of the Admiralty and of the state of the national finances, if the advocates of this scheme will put up a scheme we will consider it. We can do nothing else.

Mr. PETO: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiries at the Government Geological Office, in Jermyn Street, as to whether a complete section of the canal was not executed by a Government surveyor, for the benefit of the Admiralty, to enable Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth and Co. to make an estimate for the canal during the War?

ROAD FUND.

Mr. CAUTLEY: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the possibility of the introduction this Session of legislation empowering the Road Board to borrow the money required for the construction of new roads and confining the application of the present funds, which consist of the taxes levied on the users of motor vehicles, solely to the
maintenance and improvement of existing roads, both main and rural, and possibly the necesary sinking funds on the loans, and thus appreciably relieve the high local rates that have to be levied for the roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. This possibility has been carefully considered, but I do not think it desirable in present circumstances to borrow money for this purpose.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Is it possible to justify capital expenditure out of yearly taxes?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think so. If you consider the position of the Road Fund at the present moment, I am afraid there is no alternative.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Why should present users pay for new roads?

RAILWAY RATES.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 65.
asked the Prime Minister whether, taking into consideration that. the railway companies are now paying considerably less for coal and wages than they were in August, 1920, and that they have placed to depreciation and reserve funds a sum of £109,300,000 since December, 1913, the Government will take steps to secure from the railway companies a, large contribution, by way of a reduction in railway rates, towards the relief of the depressed condition of trade and agriculture?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. The Railways Act, 1921, established the Railway Rates Tribunal as the determining authority in respect of railway charges, and ample opportunities are afforded by that Act of securing such reduction in railway charges as the Tribunal deem just. I would remind the hon. Member that, under Sections 60 and 78 of the Act, the initiative in the matter rests with the traders.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: May I ask whether, seeing that the railways have, apparently, done very well out of the War, it should not be the duty of the Government to make them contribute much more largely than they are at present prepared to do to the restoration of trade and agriculture in this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the question on the Paper over again.

LONDON DOCKS (NEW WORKS).

Mr. GILBERT: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has now completed arrangements with the Port of London Authority as to putting certain dock works in hand with the view of relieving unemployment in London; what works will be put in hand forthwith; what approximate number of men will be employed on the jobs; and what financial arrangements have been made by the Government with the Port of London Authority in order to allow these works to be undertaken?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): In reply to the first and last parts of the question, the precise financial arrangements are still under discussion with the authority. A full description of the works would be somewhat lengthy, but the main works include the following: The provision of deep water docks and an impounding station in Surrey Commercial Docks; a new deep water dock, a new entrance lock and a new dry dock in Tilbury Docks. The number of men which it is estimated will be employed on these works is, at Surrey Commercial Docks, 400 at. the.commencement, rising to 1.000, and at Tilbury Docks, 500 at the commencement, rising to 3,500.

Mr. SHINWELL: Having regard to the amount of work that will be provided if these schemes are put in hand, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to expedite the financial arrangements with the Port of London Authority?

Major PAGET: May I ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman will ensure that only English granite is used in these works?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

LONDON GOVERNMENT (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. PENNY: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation this year to carry out any of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on London Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Committee on the Price of Building Materials which he has appointed will have full powers to obtain for their own use books of account, balance sheets, and all necessary particulars from firms or combines supplying building materials required for houses under the new subsidy scheme; and whether it will be instructed to report what prices would in each case provide for the cost of producing these goods and for a reasonable trading profit thereon?

Mr. TURNER: 96.
asked the Minister of Health if he is prepared to take steps to secure legal authority to punish any individual, directors of trusts, combines, or syndicates, who are helping to keep up the prices of building materials by restricting the supply?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I do not propose that any statutory powers should be given at the outset to the Committee, but that it should confine itself to a survey of prices and to reporting the facts to myself and the President of the Board of Trade. The question of legislation will be considered if experience of the work of the Committee shows that it requires special powers such as those mentioned by the hon. Member.

Mr. ROBERTS: Cannot they be given powers by vote of the House of Commons to get these particulars?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They can be given powers by legislation, hut I want them to get to work at once.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right lion. Gentleman any power to prevent building rings increasing the price of materials?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no statutory powers. I think that statutory powers are not the only powers.

Mr. ROBERTS: Cannot this Committee be made a Parliamentary Committee, and given powers for getting papers and records?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is another question.

Mr. ROBERTS: No, it. is this question.

EDGWOOD HOSTEL, BELVEDERE.

Mr. JARRETT: 80.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will withdraw the notices to quit served on the men in the Edgwood Hostel, Belvedere, in view of the fact that building operations are not likely to he commenced upon the site for some considerable time; whether he will extend the period of the tenancy until such time as the land must be surrendered under the Defence of the Realm Regulations: and, if so, whether he will state the period for which such extension of tenancy can he granted?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir John Baird): The land in question is held under the Defence of the Realm Acts and must be surrendered by the 31st August next, but, by agreement, vacant possession was promised as soon after the 31st March as possible. I understand, however, that it will not be practicable to utilise the land for building purposes for some time, and I have, therefore, arranged for the withdrawal of the notices to quit. As my Department will require some three or four weeks in which to make the necessary arrangements for securing complete vacant possession, the latest date to which I am able to extend the occupancy of the hostel is the 31st. July next.

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS (SCOTLAND).

Mr. STURROCK: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether the speech delivered in the Conservative Club in Edinburgh on Friday last by the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health represents the considered policy of the Government in regard to assisting house-building in Scotland; whether he is aware that the plan outlined by the Under-Secretary was adversely criticised by members of his audience, and has caused grave uncertainty in Scottish local government circles; and whether, before anything further is officially said or done in this matter, the elected Parliamentary representatives of Scotland at Westminster may have a statement in the House of Commons and an opportunity of debating the Government's proposals?

The PRIME MINISTER: No statement of the Government policy on housing has been made by the Under-Secretary for Health for Scotland going beyond the
detailed statements already made in this Horse. In regard to the last part of the question, Members will, of course, have the complete statement of the Government policy on the Second Reading of the Housing Bill and opportunities of debating the Government proposals then, and in subsequent stages of this Measure.

Mr. MACPHERSON: In order to avoid any misunderstanding, will the right hon. Gentleman sanction the issue of a statement explaining clearly how far the Government proposals affect Scotland? The English proposal has been adumbrated. The people of Scotland are anxious to know exactly how the thing is going to affect them?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have read the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend and I do not think it contains anything snore than has been stated in this House.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not the case that the Under-Secretary for Health did make reference to the amount of the proposed subsidy which should be paid to the local authorities, and does that not represent the policy of the Cabinet?

The PRIME MINISTER: That has been stated by the Minister of Health in this House.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not the case that the Minister of Health stated in reply to a question put by myself last week that he would give consideration to a proposal to increase the amount of the subsidy for Scotland?

Mr. STURROCK: In view of the fact, from the Press comments and other criticism in Scotland, that clearly there is great uncertainty about the Government proposal, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it very desirable that a comprehensive statement should be made in this House?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Before the Prime Minister replies, may I ask, will he say whether the subsidy announced for England applies to Scotland?

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, my statement had relation only to England.

Mr. MACPHERSON: In view of the fact that this matter is of very great importance to the people. of Scotland would the Minister of Health tell us what subsidy we are going to get in Scotland?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman had better put down a question for Wednesday.

CHINA (FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION).

Dr. CHAPPLE: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether any immediate steps are being taken in the direction of formulating a definite policy by his Government towards the financial reconstruction of China pending the appointment of a foreign commission upon the ratification by the remaining Governments of the Washington Resolutions?

Mr. McNEILL: The problems arising out of the present chaotic state of Chinese finances are receiving the constant attention of His Majesty's Government. The chief purpose of the Tariff Commission mentioned by the hon. Member is to prepare for the abolition of likin, and to determine the conditions upon which a Customs surtax of 2½ per cent. may be granted. It is not contemplated that the Commission shall undertake the general financial reconstruction of China.

Dr. CHAPPLE: Is the Department. devoting its attention and directing its efforts to a more, rapid development of policy?

Captain HAY: Before we formulate any policy for the financial reconstruction of China, ought we not to proceed to formulate a policy of social reconstruction at home?

LOCKS COMMON, PORTHCAWL, GLAMORGANSHIRE.

Major ATTLEE: 71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has been asked to sanction a scheme regarding Locks Common, Porthcawl, Glamorganshire; whether he has considered that it will be an oppressive cost on the ratepayers; and whether he will withhold his sanction until the opinions of the ratepayers are properly ascertained?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, Sir, and after carefully considering all the objections to the scheme, whether made in writing or put forward at the public local inquiry held last November, I have decided to approve it subject to certain modifications which are intended to
remove any misapprehension as to the obligations of the local authority under the scheme. I am satisfied that the opinions of all parties were adequately voiced at the above-mentioned inquiry.

OYSTER FISHERIES (EXPLOSIVES).

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: 73.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the losses which have fallen upon the public and private oyster fisheries through the dumping of surplus explosives, especially T. N. T., in too close proximity to in-shore fisheries, he will consider the question of payment of compensation to the owners of such fisheries?

Sir R. SANDERS: As at present advised, I am unable to agree that the

losses referred to have resulted from the dumping of surplus explosives. I am not, therefore, in a position to recommend the payment. of compensation from State funds.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Does the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister intend to-day to go beyond the first. three Orders on the Paper?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

Motion made, and Question put,
 That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House). "—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 114.

Division No. 62.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Colfox, Major Wm- Phillips
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Apsley, Lord
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Cope, Major William
Hood, Sir Joseph


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hudson, Capt. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Curzon, Captain viscount
Hughes, Collingwood


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Becker, Harry
Doyle, N. Grattan
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Bennett, Sir T. j. (Sevenoaks)
Elliot, Capt. Waiter E. (Lanark)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel


Berry, Sir George
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
King, Capt Henry Douglas


Betterton, Henry B.
Erskine-Boist, Captain C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Lamb, J. Q.


Blundell, F. N.
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A,
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Brass, Captain W,
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Frece, Sir Walter de
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Furness, G. J.
Lorden, John William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lorimer, H. D.


Bruford, R.
Gates, Percy
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Bruton, Sir James
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Buckingham, Sir H.
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Maddocks, Henry


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)
Margesson, H. D. R.


Butcher, Sir John George
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)


Butler, H. M. (Leeds. North)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mercer, Colonel H.


Button, H. S.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F, (Dulwich)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Halstead, Major D.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Morris, Harold


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harrison, F. C.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Harvey, Major S. E.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.(Honiton)


Clayton, G. C.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Murchison, C. K.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Richardson, sir Alex, (Gravesend)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Wallace, Captain E.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Paget, T. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, S. R.


Pease, William Edwin
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Whitla, Sir William


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Penny, Frederick George
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sandon, Lord
Winterton, Earl


Peto, Basil E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wise, Frederick


Pielou, D. P.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wolmer, Viscount


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Shipwright, Captain D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sinclair, Sir A.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Preston, Sir W, R.
Singleton, J. E.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Privett, F. J.
Sparkes, H. W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Stanley, Lord
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Steel, Major S. Strang
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)



Remer, J. R.
Stuart. Lord C. Crichton-
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Remnani, Sir James
Sturrock, J. Leng
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


Rentoul, G. S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser



NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Phillipps, Vivian


Ammon, Charles George
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Attlee, C. R.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Potts, John S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Barnes, A.
Hinds, John
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Batey, Joseph
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Royce, William Stapleton


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hogge, James Myles
Saklatvala, S.


Bonwick, A.
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Salter, Dr. A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Irving, Dan
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Briant, Frank
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Buckle, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Simpson, J. Hope


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Chapple, W. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Philip


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Kenyan, Barnet
Stephen, Campbell


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Stewart, I. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Sullivan, J,


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Duncan, C.
Leach, W.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edmonds, G.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Linfield, F. C.
Thornton, M.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Lowth, T.
Tillett, Benjamin


Falconer, J.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Gosling, Harry
M'Entee, V. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Maxton, James
Webb, Sidney


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Middleton, G.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Millar, J. D,
Whiteley, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morel, E. D.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Muir, John W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
O'Connor, Thomas P.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
O'Grady, Captain James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Paling, W.
Mr. Nell Maclean and Mr. Lunn.

CHILDREN, YOUNG PERSONS, ETC.,BILL,

"to consolidate, extend, and amend the Children Acts, 1908 to 1921, and other enactments relating to persons under the age of sixteen years, and certain enactments relating to offences against the person, and to make further provision with respect thereto and to certain minors, and to amend the Law of
Marriage with respect to persons under the age of sixteen years, and to extend and amend the Law of Homicide, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. AMMON; suported by Mr. Wignall, Colonel Wedgwood, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Cecil Wilson; to be read a second time upon Friday 27th April, and to be printed. [Bill 71.].

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Dangerous Drugs and Poisons (Amendment) Bill): Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Persons under Eighteen) Bill): Mr. Secretary Bridgeman; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Persons under Eighteen) Bill): Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
4.0 P.M.
The Bill, the second Reading of which I am going to ask the House to pass this afternoon, is one of the minor Measures of the Session. It is, nevertheless, one of some urgency, as I shall expect to show. It is a very short Bill. On the other hand, it makes up for its want of length by its extraordinary dullness. It does not raise any profound question of principle, because it is an extension of previous measures. I doubt, therefore, whether I shall be able to arouse any particular enthusiasm for it, unless it comes from those parts of Scotland which have a taste for dry subjects. There are three operative Clauses in the Bill. The first one has to do with London, the last one has to do with Scotland only, and the middle one has to do with local authorities generally in England and Wales. It will be necessary for me, in order to explain the first Clause, to explain, very briefly, the purpose of Section 1 of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921, which is extended by the present Bill. That Section deals with the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and, for the benefit of any hon. Member who may not be familiar with that Fund, I think I had, perhaps, better show what is the purpose of the Fund and how it works.
The Fund was established in 1867 with the object of spreading the burden of certain items of Poor Rate expenditure over the metropolitan area, thus relieving the poorer unions by getting contributions from the richer unions. It works in this way. After any half-year the guardians in each union prepare a statement of their expenditure under the different headings which are chargeable to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. That statement is audited by the district auditor, and it is then passed on through
the Ministry of Health to the Receiver of the Fund. He again examines the statement, and, when he has got all the statements in and he is satisfied that they are correct, he adds them together, and, dividing them by the total rateable value of the whole metropolitan area, he obtains the: rate in the £ of that rateable value which would be necessary in order to raise the sum required to meet the whole of these charges. The next thing he has to do is to take the rateable value of each union in turn, and, multiplying that by the rate in the £ already arrived at, he finds out what contribution will be necessary from each particular union in order that it shall bear its proper proportion of the expenses. Hon. Members will see, therefore, that in respect of each union there is a claim made by the union upon the Fund, and there is also a claim made by the Fund upon the union. The difference between those two figures represents the amount which each union has either to pay or to receive from the Fund.
Among the various items included in those chargeable to the Fund was that of indoor relief, but it was limited up to this Act of 1921 to an amount of 5d. per person in the various institutions. Owing to the great increased cost it was found necessary to increase that amount of 5d., and it was so increased in this Act of 1921 to 1s. 3d. per person. That provision only extended up to the end of last year, and the first Clause of the Bill which is now before the House extends it again until the 1st April, 1924. Perhaps I may just interpolate here an explanation of the fact which may probably have puzzled some lion. Members. The old Act expired on 31st December, 1922, and hon. Members might therefore think that; there will be a sort of gap between the time when that Act expired and the time when the present Bill can become an Act. I may say that no gap will occur, because this process of formulation of claim, of examination, of auditing, and, finally, of payment takes a very considerable time, so that in respect of the half-year which ends the 31st of this month it is probable that no payment in any case could be made until the end of this year, and, if this Bill becomes an Act, no interruption will take place in the ordinary process. Under this first Clause, hon. Members will see paragraph (a) which makes a slight modification in the arrangement under
the 1921 Act. The object. of this modification is to bring into the items chargeable to the Fund institutions like the Hollesley Bay farm colony which are not themselves workhouses, but in which the central unemployed body maintains a number of unemployed whose expenses are chargeable to the guardians. That is now brought into, and I think should properly be brought into, the items which are chargeable to the Fund, and it will probably increase the amount by something like £3,000.
Paragraph (b) of the same Clause deals with out-relief. Previous to 1921 out-relief was not one of the items which was included in those chargeable to the fund, but, in view of the enormous amount of money which at that time was being spent in out-relief to unemployed persons, it was found necessary to bring it in. The Act of 1921 did bring it in, subject to this condition and limitation, namely, that no repayment should take place in respect of any relief which had been given in excess of a certain prescribed scale, which was prescribed by my predecessor, and which is now known as the "Mond Scale." The object was obvious. If you are going to have certain unions contributing towards the expenditure of other unions, you must have some provision to see that there is no undue extravagance or liberality; in short, if you have equalisation of rates you must also have some sort of equalisation of method and standard of relief. Before drafting the present Bill extending the provision in relation to outdoor relief, there was a conference of the boards of guardians concerned, and, among other things, they considered whether this method of prescribing a scale was the most convenient method which could be employed for the purpose in view. They came to the conclusion that it was a somewhat cumbersome and costly arrangement and that a better arrangement and one which would be much more easily worked would he something in the shape of a flat rate per person relieved. Up to that point there was agreement among the various boards which were present at the conference, hut not unnaturally, when they came actually to fix the figure which should form the basis of the flat rate, there was some disagreement.
The unions which would have to pay thought that a figure of 8d. would be
quite enough, whereas those who were going to receive thought that it ought to be something in the neighbourhood of 10½d. I am not going to argue the point this afternoon. The figure actually in the Bill is 9d., which comes between the two. It has all the advantages and disadvantages of a compromise. It probably satisfies neither side, but, quite apart from the fact that it is between these two figures, it seems to me, from the information that I have been able to get, a very fair figure in the circumstances. I suggest, however, that. this is a matter which is essentially a Committee point. If it be challenged in Committee, I shall be able to put forward figures to show why we have selected 9d. In the meantime, there is nothing in the actual figure itself which need delay us in the discussion upon the Second Reading. There is just one other point in connection with the figure to which I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members. It will he seen that the way the Clause is drafted the rate of 9d. per person is not what you may call a true flat rate. It is not 9d. in every case, but 9d. or the actual expenditure per person, whichever is the less. That is one way of doing it. Another way would be to make it. 9d. in any case, and I think there is something to be said for the view that, if you say it is to be 9d. or the actual expenditure, whichever is the less, you do not give a union any particular incentive to keep down its expenditure, because the only result of reducing its expenditure below 9d. will be that it will receive less from the Common Poor Fund. Therefore, if that arrangement he challenged, and if Amendments he suggested in Committee which would make it a true flat rate, I shall he quite prepared to consider any suggestion of the kind with an open mind.
I now come to the second Clause, which, as I say, is applicable to local authorities all over the country. There, again we are merely extending certain provisions which were introduced in the Financial Provisions Act of 1921. with the object of easing the burden generally for local authorities who are having to make very large inroads upon their resources in order to relieve the persons who are unemployed. This Clause extends certain provisions of two Sections—Sections 3 and 6—of the 1921 Act. Section 3 of that Act enables the Minister in certain cir-
cumstances to extend the time within which sums borrowed by local authorities for current expenses have to be repaid. Instead of having to be repaid within the year, if borrowed before the 1st April, 1923, they may be repaid within a period extended by the Minister of Health, if he thinks the circumstances warrant it, to as much as 10 years. The effect of Paragraph (a) of Clause 2 is to extend that provision to money borrowed before 1st April, 1924. Section 6 of the same Act allowed certain loans borrowed by local authorities not to count in the total amount of money which they are allowed to borrow under certain circumstances. As a rule, that is twice the assessable value of the authority. That limit is temporarily removed under the 1921 Act up to 1st. April, 1923, and the limit is again extended by this Clause to 1st April, 1924. The last paragraph, Paragraph (c), dispenses with the necessity of a local inquiry by a Ministry of Health inspector, which was necessary before when the amount of money borrowed by a local authority exceeded the amount of the assessable value of the authority.

Mr. C, EDWARDS: Is that a new provision?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, this is merely an extension again of the provision contained in the 1921 Act, really extending it for another year. Now I come to the last operative Clause—Clause 3—which deals with Scotland. I do not know that I have the language or that I am so familiar with Scottish practice as to be entirely competent to make this clear, but fortunately I shall have the co-operation of my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Elliot), and if there be anything which I omit or fail to make clear, he will be able later on to remedy the omission.
Up to the year 1921 parish councils in Scotland, which correspond with our boards of guardians, had no power whatever to give relief to able-bodied unemployed persons, but the amount of distress which was rife and the number of persons who were unable to obtain work, and who were suffering distress, made the question so urgent and made the existing methods of dealing with unemployment so inadequate that a provision was introduced into the 1921 Act enabling these parish councils to give relief to the able-bodied unemployed.
That again was only a temporary provision. It expires on 15th May next, and the effect of Clause 3 is to further extend that period from 15th May this year to 15th May, 1924. It is, however, accompanied by two new provisions. The burden which has been thrown on parish councils is very severe, and it is felt that it is only reasonable that there should be some ease in carrying that burden and that it should not be thrown entirely upon the present ratepayers. We all agree, I suppose, that the present incidence of unemployment is a more or less temporary phase. It will last a shorter rather than a longer time. If that be so, clearly the entirely abnormal charges which are laid upon these parish councils during a temporary period ought not to be borne during the whole of that period, but ought to be spread over a longer period, so the 1921 Act provided that the period within which the repayment of loans borrowed for this purpose had to be made might go up to a. maximum of five years, and even in exceptional cases might be extended by the Minister to as much as 10 years. Now in view of the fact that unemployment is still continuing, and is still very severe, we are prepared to increase the maximum to 10 years and the period to which the Minister may go in exceptional cases to 15 years. That forms the subject of paragraph (b)) of the Clause.
The other provision, which is also designed to meet objections and representations which have been made to us by parish councils, is that they have complained in the past that they have been obliged to give all this money away without being able to exact any work in return for it. They have said that is not only unfair to them: it is unfair to the men themselves, who ought to be given an opportunity of getting work, and would be only too glad if they could get it Paragraph (a) of this Clause is designed to meet that objection so far as it is possible to do it. It authorises a parish council to make arrangements with a local authority, or with a public body approved by the Minister of Health, under which these unemployed able-bodied persons to whom relief is to be given may be employed by that local authority or public body, and the council is empowered to contribute to the wages
paid to these people such amount as they may think fit, provided it does not exceed the amount which they themselves would be able to give by way of relief. There is one special body, the Leith Dock Commission, which is in the mind of the Secretary for Scotland. I very cordially endorse this provision, which I think will enable the money, which is to he spent in any ease, to bring back some useful turn, which I believe will be heartily welcomed by those who have to receive it. I think I have described shortly as I could the purpose and the meaning of all the Clauses in the Bill, and I trust the House will not feel it necessary to delay very long in passing the Second Reading.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what he means in the difference between a public body and a local authority? Do I understand that the local authority, in this case the parish council, will contribute towards the wages paid to a man employed, say, by a railway company or a dock company or something of that kind?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, if approved by the Minister.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to acid the words "upon this clay six months."
We have given notice of a formal Amendment to reject the Bill, not because we are opposed to it as a whole, but because many of us who represent Scottish constituencies are very anxious regarding the Scottish provisions that it contains. The position in Scotland is that Prior to the Act of 1921 it was quite impossible for any parish council or Poor Law authority to give relief to t he able bodied, but owing to the very great extension of unemployment, and the widespread distress, it was found necessary to go back on that long standing practice and to authorise the parish councils of Scotland to give relief to able-bodied people out of work. The first point to which I wish to draw attention is that Clause 3 of this Bill continues a system which is working out with very great injustice to a comparatively small number of parish councils. There are in all very nearly 900 parishes, but hundreds
of them have come under no obligation or burden whatever in this matter of special provision for unemployment. The burden has fallen upon a limited number of parish councils lying mainly in the industrial belt between the Forth and the Clyde, with one or two parish councils north and south of that area, and on that comparativeley small number of Scottish Poor Law authorities at present there has fallen a burden in the relief of unemployment which many of them are not able to carry, and which is going to mortgage their resources for many years to come. When this proposal was first considered by the House in 1921, some of us drew attention to two problems, first of all the problem of the necessitous area, and in the second place, the problem which arises from the fact that in this scheme of relieving the able bodied, there is no recourse whatever to the recognised practice of settlement, which is part of the Scottish Poor Law system.
Let us take, first of all, the point regarding the necessitous area. This may be a convenient opportunity for asking the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether any decision has been reached as to the definition of necessitous area, or whether we are still going on very largely defining "necessitous area" on the basis of the high rate, which in turn throws us back upon the underlying system of valuation. In Scotland there can be no more misleading basis on that point than just that basis of valuation. There are certain communities in which the valuation is very high, and accordingly the rate is comparatively low, but if the figures for Poor Law relief are analysed, it will be found that those communities of high valuation are paying enormous sums in the relief of the able-bodied poor and those, unemployed, although according to the ordinary definition of "necessitous area" they would not be entitled to the same consideration as districts with a lower valuation and a higher rate, and therefore on that basis presumed to be dying more, or understood to be doing more, at the expense of the ratepayers affected. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should tell us whether any decision has been reached on that point, and, if so, whether we are going to get the benefit of a better definition of "necessitous area.' The second point—and this is raised very
directly and sharp by the present Bill—is that for the purpose of relieving the able-bodied unemployed under this measure there is no recourse whatever to settlement. By "settlement" of course we mean that each applicant for Poor Law relief had some parish of settlement or a parish to which recourse may be had by the relieving parish, for any expenditure or allowance which was granted. It is expressly provided in the Act of 1921, that there is no inroad whatever upon the ordinary principles and practice of the law of settlement in Poor Law relief in Scotland. That is not interfered with in any way, but, in practice the Scottish Poor Law authorities at present have found it absolutely impossible to work any system of settlement at all in this matter and the result is that we are denied even that modified method of distributing the burden of providing for the able-bodied poor over a large part of Scotland, such as would be accomplished if this law of settlement, were in operation. I think that can hardly be regarded as a satisfactory system, especially when this is not a problem of the next three, four or five years, or even for a comparatively short time ahead.
The right hon. Gentleman himself, in this Bill which is now being unfortunately rendered necessary, has entended the time for the, repayment of loans from five to 10, and if necessary to 15, years, so that many of the Poor Law authorities between the Forth and the Clyde are promised a burden spread over the next 15 years of their experience. We have always urged that this problem of unemployment was national in character, and we have said over and over again that the Poor Law authorities, certainly in Scotland, have no business whatever to be saddled with enormous burdens in the relief of distress which they had no power to control and in which they had practically no influence in any shape or form. We feel that that is a very reasonable contention that we are now putting forward, but if the Government will not meet us in the proposal that it should he regarded as a national burden and provided for accordingly, they should at least meet us to the extent of putting the burden fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of the whole of the ratepayers of Scotland and not of ratepayers in districts which,
curiously enough, are the districts most penalised by the distress through which the country is passing, and in many cases the least able to shoulder and carry the burden. When this matter was investigated a year and a half ago, it is true replies were not received, or merely formal replies were received, from a large number of parish councils. Only a hundred or two out of 900 replied that they were affected. That is true. A large number of the parish councils have practically no burden in this case whatever. There can be no doubt that if it is to be a matter for the ratepayers —and that is the contention of the Government—it should he a matter for the ratepayers of the country as a whole. In any case, it should not fall exclusively, as it does now, upon ratepayers of a narrow district in Scotland, and that district most affected by distress. We have urged this over and over again, and this is an opportunity of pressing the consideration once more upon the Government. I hope that we may get some information from the Scottish Office on two points, (1) whether even yet they cannot reconsider their position and make this a matter of national obligation, and whether there is any grant from public funds which these distressed parish councils could receive; (2) if they cannot do that, are they going to allow the system of settlement in Scotland to go by the board, with this form of relief, and do nothing to spread the burden equitably over the country as a whole?
These are a few of our leading objections to the Bill. I am bound to point out that in Clause 3 there is introduced, in regard to Scotland, a very dangerous principle in the proposal to enable the Poor Law authorities to subsidise wages given for relief work. The right hon. Gentleman defends that proposal on the ground that it will be better to give the men the idea that they are doing some work for the allowance which they are receiving. I entirely agree on that point. We, on these benches, have always been stubbornly opposed to this method of dole or allowance without service of any kind. It is absolutely demoralising in character, and there is not the slightest doubt that it has led to a certain amount of demoralisation in Scotland which, I am afraid, will take many years to overcome. We are entirely with the right hon. Gentleman in that connection; but we are, I
think, entirely against him in the proposal which he makes in the Bill, because in effect the proposal comes to this, that where these relief schemes are undertaken the parish council may come along and subsidise out of Poor Law funds the wages that are paid. We believe that principle to be thoroughly unsound. It would be a thousand times better to pay-proper remuneration for the relief schemes. If money is going to he raised for these relief schemes in order to give these men work, or part payment for work, it is clearly the duty of the Government to raise the rates which are paid for relief work, or to make some other provision, since, obviously, provision must be made; but it is bad practice and contrary to all that is best in the Poor Law system to subsidise wages out of Poor Law money. When this matter is understood in Scotland I am satisfied that there will be hostility on the part of Scottish Members who do not sit on these benches, but who are familiar with the practice of Scottish Poor Law for many years.
I enter the strongest protest against this provision of the Bill. If I had my way, I would divide against it this afternoon. We shall certainly oppose it in Committee. Of course the Measure, is temporary in character, but let me remind the House that in extending the period of repayment, five, ten and, if necessary, fifteen years, we are imposing a very heavy burden upon a limited number of Scottish Poor Law authorities. Already their rates are very high. In some cases they have found it very difficult to levy a rate at all, and they are entitled to better consideration at the hands of the Government than this Bill gives them.

Mr. STEWART: I beg to second the Amendment.
I agree with all that has been said by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) in regard to Scotland in general. I want to deal with the position of Glasgow in particular. Glasgow has protested all the time against its being made a vehicle for dealing with a problem with which it is unfitted and unconstituted to deal. Scotland does not know the able-bodied pauper. It has not dealt with that problem, and it is having cast upon it a thing with which it is entirely unfitted to deal. The rates in Glasgow at the
moment are something like 15s. in the £ not based on the valuation but levied on the actual rental, which makes it a very much higher rate than would appear to the ordinary English Member, seeing that rating in England is on quite a different basis. We are spending in Poor Law relief in the two great parishes of Govan and Glasgow, 4s. in the pound. That figure is going to increase very rapidly at a time when difficulties are very great. Govan has incurred an expenditure of over £360,000. Govan is a locality particularly hit with unemployment. Never at any time in its history was it less able to bear the increased burden. It is a centre of shipbulding. The yards are empty, and yet these rates arc coming on to the industry at a time when the industry is in the very worst condition that has occurred since the inception of shipbuilding on the River Clyde. A rate of one penny in the pound in Govan only yields about £7,000, and at the moment they are spending more than one halfpenny in the pound in a. week on actual relief.
In the parish of Glasgow this year they will have spent a sum of £460,000 for unemployed able-bodied relief. That means a great increase in the rates, and even if the period is carried over 15 years it will amount to a tremendous burden. Glasgow, I think, is more affected by unemployment than any other industrial centre in the country, and at a moment like this, when wages are falling, when everything is conspiring against our recovery, the Government comes along with a Bill that is going to make heavy burdens much heavier. The gap period will add very materially to the difficulties under which they are labouring. These parish councils have protested individually and collectively to the Secretary for Scotland. Deputations have waited upon him on several occasions and have pointed out their difficulties, but all they have got is the statement: "If it does not go on the rates, it will have to go on the taxpayer, and they are one and the same person." Is that true? It is not true. The people who have to pay the taxes are the people who are in the best position to bear the burden. Take Glasgow, with nearly 100,000 unemployed, and with wages a little over 30s. a week in the shipbuilding yards, and in the great industries. These people, who are the
least able to bear it, are called upon to shoulder a burden which is heavier than they can bear.
The parish councils cannot go on indefinitely dealing with this matter. We suggest to the Government that they should face the difficulty as it was intended to be faced, and to give these great communities where distress is greatest some relief, instead of further adding to their burdens, and making the poison a little easier to take by saying that instead of having it spread over a period of 10 years the period is to be increased to 15 years. In Glasgow, as throughout Scotland, we have the same differentiation between people who are able to bear the burden and those who are not able to bear the burden. Those who are able to bear the burden are not called upon to bear it. The two parishes to which I have referred are parishes where the industrial population live, but we have a residential parish called Cathcart where the well-to-do people reside. That parish could easily bear an increase in its rates if it is essential that this burden should he met by the rates; but they are entirely relieved. Although they are part and parcel of the great community of Glasgow, and draw their income, in the main, from the City of Glasgow, they have not to bear their share of the burden that is falling increasingly heavily on the poorest localities in the city.
I appeal to the Secretary for Scotland and the Minister of Health to consider this matter and to see whether they cannot find relief from this particular burden which they are throwing upon us. I agree absolutely with the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, and that is, that none of this money that is being gathered together for relief should be utilised for subsidising wages. There is at the present time, in connection with the Clyde Trust, a great contract going on for the enlargement of the docks. That has been given out to a contractor. That contractor might apply to the parish councils to get a subsidy to help to pay wages, on the ground that he is giving employment. That would mean that a private contractor, with a private contract, carried out for profit through a public body, might have his labour subsidised and thereby help to lower the standard of wages. Instead of helping to cure, it would accentuate the disease
which the Government are trying to remedy. I hope we shall get an assurance, clear and well defined, that no such position as that will arise. I do sincerely trust that the parish councils in Glasgow and surrounding neighbourhoods are not to be completely overburdened by the rates going up and up to meet a duty which is the duty of the State and not the duty of any particular locality.

Mr. HARRIS: It is rather unfortunate that this Bill deals with—if I may use the expression—two separate countries. It shows the great advantage of Scottish Home Rule. I suggest that the Government, in dealing with these important and interesting local Government questions, would do well to divide the Scottish from the English problem. I have considerable sympathy with the point of view of the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, but from the standpoint of London, I can say, without fear of contradiction from any part of the House, that would be nothing short of disastrous. This is not a Bill that is attractive, on the contrary, it embodies a principle which is fundamentally bad, it is emergency legislation. If the previous Government had shown foresight, if it had been prepared to tackle this problem when it arose, it would not have been necessary to deal with this problem—which must sooner or later be dealt with scientifically—on these emergency lines. There it is; the question has to be dealt with. It was dealt with two years ago, largely through the courage, tenacity and pluck or the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). If the hon. Member will forgive me for saying so, I do not like that kind of action being necessary. He will be the first to support me when I say that it is bad to have to bring about results, however good, by direct action.

Mr. LANSBURY: Look at us; we do not look so bad!

Mr. HARRIS: I know my hon. Friend would be the last to express approval of the necessity for such action. What I say, and I think I have the House with me, is that the business of a Government is to deal with problems as they arise, with reasonable foresight, and as far as possible on permanent lines. Then the necessity for direct action and strong measures will be avoided.
This is, of course, a continuation of emergency legislation. Here, again, I am sorry that the Ministry of Health, of which the right hon. Gentleman is so distinguished an ornament as its head, and which has had two years to think over this question, has thought out no better scheme. It yielded under pressure. There were hastily-called meetings of the interested parties, and this was originally brought forward, not as a solution of the problem, but as an emergency measure. These two years have not been fruitful, and we are practically where we were. I cannot blame the right hon. Gentleman. He was fortunate enough not to be a member of the late Government, therefore he cannot be made responsible for their action. He has only been a very few weeks at the head of his Department, and he has to be parent of a Bill for the creation of which he really is not responsible. He will bear me out when I say, as a man who has devoted many years to local government, that these problems, if they are going to be satisfactorily solved, must be dealt with on sound local government lines, and it possible on such a basis that they are likely to be permanent.
I wish to point out one fundamental fault in this scheme for dealing with relief of poverty in London. There was an enormous increase in the number of unemployed, an unprecedented and very rapid increase, that pushed enormous burdens on to the ratepayers. The late Minister of Health had a very simple remedy. He did not bring assistance out of the National Exchequer from the revenues at the disposal of the Government, but pushed it on to the ratepayers. He merely readjusted the incidence. I think, on the whole, the readjustment of incidence in London was fair, at any rate so far as a compromise Measure can go, but it did not bring in national hinds to relieve the exceptionally heavy burdens of London. One cannot get, over the fact that London, as a capital city, does tend to attract people from all parts of the country when there are exceptional periods of unemployment. After a desperate attempt to get work locally, the tendency is to drift to London as a last resort. The incidence of rating in London is merely readjusted between different parts of the town. Those readjustments do make a material difference, and bring very considerable relief to the
poorer parts of London. So far as I have considered the figures—London finance is very complex, no one knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman, who was for many months a member of the Royal Commission—it brings relief to Bethnal Green to the amount, of 2s. 1d. in the £ and to Poplar to an amount of no less than 4s. 2d. in the £. Curiously enough, the two richest districts in London are only involved in an extra burden of, in the case of Westminster, 1s. ld., and the City of London, 1s. 3d.
Though this is a small measure of justice to poor districts, it only touches the fringe of the question. It really leaves the whole of our Pour Law absolutely unreformed, although, for the last 40 years, we have had requests from every political point of view, from every party in London, and from every section of the community interested in this problem, that the London Poor Law should be reformed. A Royal Commission, as long ago as 1904, was unanimous as to the need, t hey merely differed as to the method. The last Government, through the Reconstruction Minister, appointed a Special Committee to deal with Poor Law, and its Report—known as the Maclean Report, the Committee being presided over by Sir Donald Maclean—put forward a scheme which, if it had been adopted, would have avoided the necessity for the last Act of 1921 and this special Bill now before the House. It suggested that all the Poor Law institutions, which are a very heavy charge on the localities, should be centralised. That would have meant considerable economy in administration: it would have made specialisation possible in treatment, and would have meant general economy to the ratepayers of London. It. was also suggested that the Poor Law guardians themselves should be abolished, and their duties transferred to the borough councils. That would have been a great economy from more than one point of view. It would have saved the duplication of officials, and perhaps, what is more serious, would have put the responsibility for dealing with Poor Law and all its phases in the hands of a body that really interested the electors, instead of in the hands of an authority that cannot get the electors even to go to the poll to vote for them when their election comes round every three years.
If it were important that there should be reform when the Maclean Committee
reported, still more is it important now, when the Insurance Act is in working, with all its complex machinery of Unemployment Exchanges and relief through insurance. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion for the rejection of the Bill referred to the gap. He referred to the period when the Poor Law is to come to the assistance of the insurance scheme. Does it not seem an unfortunate thing that we should now, after all our experience, have these two parallel systems working side by side, one giving relief as a right through the insurance scheme, and the other giving relief through the Poor Law, with all its taint of traditions and associations with pauperism? That shows that it is the duty and the responsibility of the Government to take in hand this problem with courage and with imagination, and not to allow it to be side-tracked by emergency legislation of this character, which does not really touch the problem or cure the evil.
I should like to deal with the London point of view. I am sorry there are not more London Members present on this important occasion. They might well take a leaf out of the book of Scotland, and show a greater interest in London questions when they come before the House. Then, I think, London would at least get common justice. Although this is an attempt to relieve some of the anomalies in rating, and to get the rich districts to help the poor districts, inequalities of rates still remain on a large scale. London, unfortunately—I suppose like most great towns, perhaps more in London than anywhere else in the world—is divided into cities of the rich and the poor. There are cities where most of the wealth is concentrated, with great banks, great insurance offices, and high assessable value; and cities of the poor, where the bulk of the working classes live and the poor arc concentrated, and where most of the poverty exists. It is not confined to the East End. You have it in the South-Fast of London, in many poor districts, and even in the North of London. That question is still unsolved by this particular Bill.
In spite of all these attempts at equalisation—this Common Poor Fund referred to by the Minister of Health is not tie only attempt at equalisation, and there are many services unified, like the education service, etc.—the rates of the
City of London are 11s. 11d. in the pound; of Westminster, 11s. 3d.; of Bethnal Green, 18s. 2d.; and of Poplar, 18s. 3d. The burdens are therefore still enormous. What is the reason? The reason is simple. The assessable value per head of the population in Bethnal Green is £5—very small. In the City of London—which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury) represents so ably, and whose cause he champions so well—the assessable value is not £5, but £456 per head of the population, and the acreage they have to administer is almost the same. The produce of a ld. rate in Bethnal Green is £2,400. In the City of London it is £26,000. They can afford to be extravagant and to indulge in all sorts of luxuries, and the ratepayer does not have to foot the bill.
5.0 p.m.
In Poplar the discrepancy is just as great. The assessable value conies out to a little over £5. In Westminster, where this Parliament is located, the assessable value is eleven times as high per head of the population, namely £55. Or to take it on the basis of the produce of a penny rate, in Poplar the figure is £4,000, and in Westminster eight times as much, namely, £32,000. Taking it on the basis of each property, in Bethnal Green the value of each property is £27, and in Westminster £230. It is a mistake to think, as I know my right hon. Friend opposite thinks, that it is all because of the extravagance of the East End of London. They may be a bit generous on some matters, and they may be overanxious to put right some anomalies, but, as a matter of fact, Westminster spends per head of the population, which is the only sound basis, far more than even Bethnal Green, with its progressive ideas. In Westminster the sum is £4 7s. 6d. per head of population and in Bethnal Green £ 5s. 4d. per head of the population. They spend more in almost every service. Take the ordinary utility service of the collection and disposal of dust: in Bethnal Green the figure is 3s. 11d. per head of the population, and in Westminster 10s. 8d. per head of the population. The only thing, so far as I can see, in which Bethnal Green is more extravagant is in maternity and child welfare, on which they spend 5d. per head, Westminster spending 2d. per head.
The House will see, therefore, that this Bill, emergency Measure as it is, only touches the fringe of the question, and I do hope that, if we give it a Second Reading this afternoon, it will not be made an excuse for avoiding this problem and not dealing with it on large and generous lines. I know there are hon. Members anxious to put points from other parts of the country, and I will not take up the time of the House any longer except to say that this London problem is a large one. It is overdue for solution, and this House has a special responsibility to solve it. We have had Royal Commission after Royal Commission, but I am afraid that most of those Royal Commissions were only an excuse for the Government of the day to avoid their responsibility. I hope this Parliament will not be put off by any excuses. We have a special responsibility because, as the capital city, we have Parliament situated in our midst. It cannot plead ignorance. It has full knowledge of the facts, and, therefore, as I have said, while supporting this Bill as an emergency Measure, I hope it will not be made an excuse, and that very soon the Minister of Health, who is such an enthusiast for local government, and has such knowledge and experience, will tackle it with imagination and wisdom.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The questions of Scotland and of London have been dealt with, and I should like to put in a plea on behalf of that even larger part of the community called England, because surely what is good for London and what is good as a reward for the direct action of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is also good for that more peaceful section of the community which up to the present has not resorted to that method. I remember that, when the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) was introducing the original Bill in 1921, he gave as one of the telling reasons why this equalisation of the poor rate should be attempted in London the differentiation between the rates. He quoted the 10s. 6d ruling in the City, and compared it with the 22s. 10d. in Poplar. If that was a sound reason for this measure of equalisation in the Metropolitan area, I submit that the table the Minister of Health presented three days ago dealing with the
different rating in the provinces is a much stronger argument in favour of the same or a similar measure of justice being granted to the provinces. He gave a return of the various Poor Law unions who had to borrow money on account of their inability out of their revenues to meet abnormal charges for relief due to unemployment. By a curious circumstance, I see the maximum and the minimum rates in these particular areas happen to come next to each other. Whereas in the union of Crickhowell the figure is 28s. 6d. in the £ in the union of Darlington it is only 10s. in the £ There is a disparity between 28s. 6d.—that is total rates and not Poor Law rates alone—and the 10s. which makes the difference between the City of London and the borough of Poplar look small in comparison.
Therefore, I submit that what was sound in principle when the right hon. Member for West Swansea in 1921 was seeking to equalise the burden is equally sound to-day for that larger area in the provinces which is groaning under burdens even greater than those in London. I am quite aware that you cannot charge the present Minister with the present position of affairs, and in criticising the matter I dissociate the Measure from his own personal responsibility, because I believe in this matter he is with us in the provinces in urging that the same measure of justice should he done to us as is being clone in London. It has been impossible during the short time we have been pleased to see him in his office for him to remodel the Bill. I believe that his Department is going further than has been done up to the present to try to find a solution of this vexed problem, and I am only putting in a plea now so that the House and Government should realise the seriousness of the position in the provinces. Whereas in sonic districts rates are coining down, in others they are going up. In the town I have the honour to represent the rates, through heavy borrowings of some £300,000 have hitherto been kept down to 20s. in the £ but in the coming financial year they are not going down, but are going lip to more than 23s. in the £.

Mr. JARRETT: Is that the general rate, or is the poor rate mainly responsible for that?

Mr. THOMSON: Mainly the poor rate. On the general rate there is an attempt to do without the conveniences we ought to have in order to help to counteract the abnormal claims on the poor rate. As the House will see, that only intensifies the argument, because, if the poor rate is going up on account of the burden of unemployment to a, greater extent than last year, that is the reason why assistance should be given. The right hon. Member for West Swansea, in dealing with this plea in 1921, raised the difficulty of the geographical situation. He suggested that, whereas it, was possible to bring the City and Poplar into one common fund, it was not so easy to bring in the scattered parts of England north and south.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Unless we manage Poplar.

Mr. LANSBURY: We will never leave you.

Mr. THOMSON: Although the machinery may be different the principle is the same, and I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to devise some machinery whereby the same relief may be given to the necessitous areas in the provinces as this Measure is giving to the necessitous areas in the Metropolitan district. It has been urged that the Government out of national funds are providing liberally by the Unemployment Insurance Act and are making loans and substantial grants out of the Unemployment Grants Fund. That is true but those reliefs are equally applicable to the Metropolitan boroughs and in to way mitigate the plea for the provinces. We ask for the equivalent of what you are doing for London, and I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will find time, even in the present year, to devise means whereby in the coming financial year relief may be given to those industrial areas which are literally being crushed and whose tirade recovery is being crippled because of the burdens which are keeping down that, revival of trade which would otherwise come, Whilst this Bill may be good for London and relief may be giver, to Scotland, there is nothing for the provinces except an extension of the loan period, and that extension is merely putting forward your burden until a later time and is no real relief. I hope the Minister may yet give us that which he is giving to the London area.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I make no apology for bringing the house back again to the situation in Scotland. The hardship which arises under this Bill will be much more noticeable in that part of the country than in any other, and although my hon. Friends may welcome the Measure as it affects England, I think it is only right that we in Scotland should make our special case, as it is one deserving consideration. When the original Act of 1921 was passed as an emergency Measure, there were considerable protests made even at that time as to the possible effect upon the rating authorities and ratepayers in the various rating areas in Scotland, and I observe that the Solicitor-General for Scotland, when introducing the Bill, made it perfectly clear on the 27th October, 1921, that he "could not concur in the view that" in a Measure intended to be of brief "duration we should contemplate a longer" period than that set forth in the Bill." It is quite evident from the, provisions of this Bill that it is expected that it may be carried over a very considerable period in front of us if the emergency continues, and for that reason all the greater attention must be paid to the effect of this Measure upon the rating areas in Scotland.
The purpose of this Bill in extending the duration of the period which was provided in the original Act is to continuo also the change in the law of Scotland to which reference has been made by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) as affecting poor relief. That was regarded at the time as a very important change, as one which might bring with it very serious results, and as a Scottish Member I desire to protest against the continuation of this change in the law where the onus ought to be thrown on the Government to deal with the situation by other means. The principle which has been adopted here is to make the parish council responsible, to raise a poor rate in relief of the able-bodied unemployed. We maintain that that duty, the relief of the unemployed, is one which the Government ought to have dealt with in a way so as to throw the burden equally on all concerned, and that it should have been made a national burden as distinct from a local burden. My hon. Friend has put very clearly indeed the unfairness of the incidence of the rate. There are many instances
which could be taken of those who reside outside the area where the works, or factories, or shipbuilding yards are situated, and who, when unemployed, will have to be maintained by a rate levied within the parish which does not get the advantage of the higher valuation placed on the works and factories where the employment is actually given. There are many parishes affected in Scotland where those who are being maintained live without the area of their immediate employment. And the burden has been thrown upon those parishes which are least able to bear it. One important factor in the situation is that we have had this question of the over-taxation of Scotland considered in the interval between the passing of the Act of 1921 and the present Bill. As my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Elliot) is aware, we had a Committee which sat to consider the question of local taxation in Scotland, and they considered this very rate which is raised by the Act of 1921

Notice is taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. MILLAR: I am glad to see that the Front Bench has been reinforced by the legal representative for Scotland (Mr. F. C. Thompson), who, I hope. will be able to deputise for the Lord Advocate, while he is not n his place. The Committee to which I have referred considered this particular rate which is now extended to cover the relief of unemployed. On page 21 of their report they point out that the law in Scotland for Poor Law relief was not available for able-bodied men, but that Parliament had recently passed an Act which had imposed on the rates the payment of relief to able-bodied persons, and that it was an enhancement of the grievances of ratepayers to extend the liability for relief to the poor to include the relief of unemployment. In Conclusion 6 of their finding they state:
 The recent duty placed till parish councils to grant Poor Law relief to able-bodied unemployed is particularly inequitable, in that it places a fresh service of Imperial concern on a local rate of which the incidence infringes the accepted canons of equitable taxation.
It is not surprising to find that that has been the opinion of those who have
been unfortunate enough to have tom, pay this rate. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman may be able to give us some details as to the various parish councils in Scotland who are in this position. Many representations have been received during the past year or two from parish councils who are in this position. Many parish councils were inclined to refuse point-blank to raise this rate and say it would be impossible to do so, that they had reached breaking point. I would like to know what are the views of the parishes which are particularly affected to-day. There are many parishes to-day in Scotland where there is little hope of raising any additional rate for the relief of unemployed without reaching the breaking point, and considerable distress will be caused by the extension of the provisions of this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has referred to the difficulty of tracing the domicile of origin of those who may have to move from one district to another, and from whose parish of origin or domicile the money paid in respect of these persons ought to be recovered. That is a real difficulty, but it does not solve the whole question, even if it were dealt with, because though we might spread the burden, where there has been movement from one district to another, we shall not spread the burden equitably unless we spread it on what I submit is the proper basis of purely national lines. But the gravity of the situation has been accentuated very much by the centralisation of unemployment in certain particular areas. It comes to this, that you are going to penalise a certain number of areas in the country, many of them with low valuations, in which the unemployed live to-day, while other districts are to go free. It is. firstly on account of the very unfair incidence of the burden that I think that a protest ought to be made and secondly, in regard to the actual amount of the rate which has to be levied.
In Scotland we have no fewer than 46 different rates at present in operation. Eight of them are parish council rates, 22 borough rates, and 16 county rates. When you extend one of these parish council rates, the poor rate, which is along with the education rate a very heavy burden on the ratepayers, you have reached the breaking point. I think that hon. Members will agree with the
opinion of the Departmental Committee on local taxation in Scotland that
 One lesson to-day is that Parliament should recognise that the present system of rates is near its breaking point. The breaking point consists in this, that any enhancement of burden will be fatal to housebuilding problem and will also be very inimical to the development of commercial and agricultural enterprise.
We all recognise the earnestness with which the Minister of Health has grappled with this difficult housing problem since he has entered on his new office, and hope that he will be able to achieve a large measure of success. The Committee go on say:
 Recognising these facts, Parliament ought to be chary of imposing new burdens on rile rates by legislation, especially when the burdens are to provide for something which is rather a national than a local interest.
I cannot imagine any words which are more opportune to-day when the Government are introducing a Bill of this kind. I hope sincerely that something will be done to reconsider the provisions of this Bill. In answer to a question which I put the other day, it was stated that up to the 3rd of March, since the Act of 1921 was passed, the amount expended by local authorities in. Scotland is roughly £2,000,000, for the relief of able-bodied destitute persons, involving loans by parish councils, on the security of their assessments, of something like £1,500,000. When we consider that that sum is not borne by the whole of Scotland, but by a certain number of parishes which have got to raise the entire of that very large amount, then we realise what a very serious burden it is.
I support my hon. Friend also in his remarks as to the undesirability of subsidising wages out of the poor rate. That is a new principle and a very undesirable one. The Government ought to shoulder their burdens, and provide any necessary funds for relief work without involving the ratepayer in this additional burden. It is true that we all desire to see relief given in an adequate form. Those of us who criticise the Bill are all desirous of seeing something done to meet, the situation which has arisen, but we do urge upon the Government that in such a matter they ought to see that the burden is borne impartially upon the shoulders of all, and is not thrown in this unfair fashion upon a limited number of people. I have received many representations on
this question. I am sure that in many parts of Scotland the feeling against this Bill will be very strong. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, and the hon. and gallant Member who represents the Scottish Office here, will be able to give us some assurance that they will amend the Bill in Committee, or ascertain whether it is possible to secure larger Imperial grants to meet the situation which has arisen.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I would like to say a few words as to the position in Scotland in connection with this Bill. Prior to September, 1921, under the Scottish Poor Law we had no power to give relief to able-bodied men and women. At that date the Scottish Board brought the parish councils together and not only told them to pay but told them the sums they had to pay, and in November this House passed the Scottish Poor Law Emergency Act. I think that it was one of the worst things that they have ever done in connection with Scotland. There is a feeling in Scotland against pauperisation. I have known families that boasted that for generations not even in the greatest need would they ever apply to the Poor Law authorities, but under the Poor Law Emergency Act, the Government are making pauperisation popular, and are teaching a new generation to go to the parish council when their fathers refused to go. This new Act is extending this very vicious principle, and I want to show you how it was felt even in a small area such as the county of Lanark.
In the County of Lanark we have paid out £220,000 to able-bodied persons. The rate per pound ranges from nothing in a number of parishes to a very high figure in other parishes. It is utterly impossible for many parishes to continue to raise money to meet this abnormal demand. In one place that I know, people on one side of the road pay 4s. in the, £for unemployment, and people on the other side pay 4d. or 5d., and in some eases even less. I hope that the representative of the Government has listened to the remarks of the last speaker. There is such a thing as the equalisation of rates in the London area. I often wonder why Scottish Ministers do not recognise that they represent Scotland in this House and do not take up the position that we are compelled to take up. These payments because of unemployment were made originally in viola-
tion of the Scottish law. Since then such payment has been legalised, and now you are to extend it. I hope that the House will refuse the extension. The Bill means practically nothing to us except that it would put us deeper in the mire. I notice that an hon. Gentleman opposite made a strong point about the extension of time. There are parishes in Lanarkshire that have already borrowed the money and, have arranged a payment over five years. The money is spent, and now an extension of time is proposed for getting new loans spread over a longer period. Suppose that the unemployment problem was ended tomorrow. We shall be paying for five years or 15 years to make up that money.
We believe that the Government has acted most unfairly with the parish councils in the matter. They were led to believe that they were to get something. Then the Government: refused to pay them. The parish councils in Scotland were never constituted to deal with unemployment. They dealt only with what they termed the legitimate poor, and the rest of the system was built up on that foundation. Then this additional burden was put on them. In connection with the subsidising of labour, it is quite true that the public authorities in Scotland have stated time and again that if money had to be paid it would he much better to get some return for it. But the money was being paid from the Employment Exchanges, and was being added to by the parish councils. We suggest to the Government that they should continue the process of building houses and get some return for the money in the form of useful work. I hope that the House will reject this Measure, for I see no good in it.

Mr. JARRETT: I do not suppose for a moment that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), who so admirably moved the rejection of this Measure, intends to press it to a Division. We have had a great deal said about the Scottish part of the Bill. I think it is a great pity that the two Measures, the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921, and the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 7921, should be drafted into one Bill for extension in this way. I would suggest that it would be wiser to divide the Bills at a later stage. The
extension proposed is the extension of a piece of emergency legislation passed in rather a hurry about 18 months ago. In common with other hon. Members, I would like to emphasise the peril that lies before us in dealing with very important national measures in the piecemeal way of the past few years. During the passage of the Act of 1921 there were many arguments advanced for dealing with the subject at the earliest possible moment upon a proper basis. It was generally agreed that the necessity for the Measure to which we are now giving a longer life was urgent. At the same time, it was suggested that the Government should consider dealing with the subject as a whole and with the country as a whole rather than with part of the subject and part of the country, namely London, as it was under the original Bill.
I would remind the House that the then Minister of Health said, on Second Reading, that he hoped that when the Ullswater Commission reported, the time would have arrived when the old standing question could be finally settled. The Ullswater Commission has reported, and the House would now like to hear whether it is intended that the Report is to be given effect to by the Government, or what steps the Government propose to take in the matter. The Minister of Health 18 months ago stated that, although the Government realised that the whole problem must be dealt with at the earliest possible moment, no Government would like to tackle the job, because it was much too big. That difficulty is emphasised by the fact that the water Commission has given us three distinct reports. It will be very interesting if we could be told to-day whether the Government propose in the near future to act upon one or other of those reports or to deal with the matter at all; in any event we might be told why it is that this Measure is being extended merely for 12 months or a little more. It. is emergency legislation originally brought in at a time when the problem could not be dealt with as a whole. I wish to emphasise what has been said with reference to areas other than London and Scotland. It seems obvious that Glasgow has very good ground for claiming to be dealt with on similar lines to London.
The country should be dealt with as a, whole. There is no doubt unemployment is a national question. We are not suffer-
ing from ordinary trade depression; our trouble is not seasonal or local. The reason for it is to be found in causes which are world-wide. When you come to what, is known as nationalising the Poor Law system of the country, and the rating of the country, you are up against a problem which seems to be incapable of a reasonable solution. But. something must be done. In one particular part of the country in which I am interested the problem has been accentuated very largely, as it has in other parts of the country, by a very large influx of labour during the War. Possibly when the Minister of Health attempts to define a necessitous area, the influx of labour from other parts of the country to various localities might be found to have some effect on that definition. I would suggest that when this general question of the Poor Law system and of rating is considered by the Government, as it must be at a very early date, the question of general management, which was referred to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), should be taken into consideration also.
Let me draw attention to a very remarkable decrease in the rates in one area of the Division which. I have the honour to represent. The general rate in the particular district of Frith has gone down to 7s. 4d. in the £ per annum, but the Poor Rate is up to 10s. in the £. The decrease of 11s in the £ on the general rate in the course of three years is due entirely to the more efficient management that has been brought to bear on the problem by a recently elected council. The fact that the Poor Rate is up is mainly due to the enormous increase of the population during the war, that increased population being now unemployed. Possibly the Poor Law system provided the hest machinery that could be used in the national emergency of unemployment, but none the less unemployment is a national question. The Minister is considering at the moment how a grant-in-aid can be made to so-called necessitous areas. I would urge that in dealing with the whole question, the question of the management and the way in which an area is organised should he taken into consideration.

Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: I know very well the genuine sympathy which my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary for Health for Scotland has with the plight of those poor local authorities in Scotland. I know my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has a similar sympathy with the local authorities of England, but I wish to confine myself on this occasion entirely to the Scottish case. Their sympathy makes it all the more remarkable that a preposterous proposal such as is contained in Clause 3 of the Bill should be brought forward for the consideration of the House of Commons. I do not know whether there are any English Members present at the moment, but they have been conspicuous by their absence from this Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no! "] I am glad to note from the symptoms of indignation in certain quarters of the House that I am not entirely correct in that statement. Will hon. Members for English constituencies consider for one moment the very-short story of this Scottish point? Up to the year 1921 there was no obligation on the parish councils of Scotland to pay relief to any able-bodied man. In 1921 it was made an obligation upon them to pay relief to able-bodied persons, and the provision was accompanied by all sorts of promises made from the Government Front Bench. There were premises or statements of the nature of promises, which have not been fulfilled, and these led the parish councils in Scotland to believe that, a very serious burden having been placed upon their shoulders, the strong arm of the Government was going to help them to bear it. There has been absolutely no Government assistance to these overrated, overworked and poor parish authorities in Scotland. In 1921 the parish councils found themselves with this terrible burden, and, as has been pointed out, they have not the staff, and they have not the funds to deal with it. There have been continual complaints and continual demands that the public Exchequer should assist in bearing what is really a general public charge.
What do we find under this Bill? I do not know what definition my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. F. C. Thomson), who sits on the Front Bench—whether in a legal, quasi-legal or illegal capacity I know not, but hope he will soon be here in a fully legal capacity—I do not know what definition he gives of a "public authority." It does seem to me, however, that we are in danger of this serious anomaly—that a
poor little parish council in Scotland, staggering under this great burden placed on it for the first time two years ago, may be called upon to subsidise a great central Government Department which refuses to pay a living wage to the men it employs on works of public utility. I challenge my hon. Friends to deny that such a state of affairs might easily arise under this Clause What is the history of this provision? The first, stage is that no parish council pays to a destitute able-bodied person. The second stage is that the parish council must pay relief to destitute able-bodied men. The third stage is one unknown in all the history of Scotland, although there have been a number of queer things in that long history. The third stage is that the parish councils for the first time in their history are to be called upon to go far beyond the payment of relief to destitute persons, and are to be called upon to pay relief to persons who are not destitute at all. At present, without this Bill, if a destitute man obtains work—honest work—and earns proper wages, the parish council has nothing to do with him. He is not in receipt of poor relief, but under this Bill, in hundreds and thousands of cases, a man who is doing his duty, engaged in honest work on a great public scheme, will have placed upon him the stigma of poor relief.

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): indicated dissent.

Mr. SHAW: My hon. and gallant Friend knowingly shakes his head. We shall be glad to learn from him how he interprets the Bill and in what way the state of affairs which I prognosticate will not come about, but he must have some patience. If a destitute man, a. man who is now destitute, is employed to-morrow by a great Government Department or local authority on a scheme of public utility, that man will have part of his wages made up by the parish council if the arrangement is to be in accordance with this Bill. You have this situation, then—the parish council is being called upon to enlarge the scope of its activities and subsidise the wages paid by local authorities and public authorities, which may include Government Departments. In spite of my hon. and gallant and erudite Friend's shaking
of his head, I contend that is most unfair to the parish councils of Scotland. It is a new burden and it is the introduction of an entirely new and vicious principle into our legislation. As I have already said, it is also unfair that an individual working on a great scheme of public utility, and doing a. fair day's work for what ought to be a fair days wage, should have placed upon him the stigma of poor relief. Therefore, though I have every desire to assist in the solution of the problem of unemployment and to alleviate the sufferings of the unemployed, I regard this Clause as short-sighted, as a Clause which is vicious to the core, and if the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) goes into the Division Lobby I shall feel bound to follow him and vote against the Bill.

Mr. W. WATSON: I wish to join with my colleagues from Scotland in protesting against Clause 3 of the Bill. I regret that this Clause has been tacked on to, the Bill. It places Scottish Members in a particularly difficult position. So far as we are concerned if the first two Clauses are acceptable to English Members we are prepared to support them, but the Scottish Members, so far as I can discover, are absolutely opposed to Clause 3, and if the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) goes into the Division Lobby we shall follow him. It is the only way of protesting against the inclusion of this Clause in the Bill. The Measure which this Bill proposes to extend was introduced in an emergency. There was a very serious unemployment, crisis in Scotland and this Act was originally introduced to deal with that emergency. Even at the present moment there is no particular reason for this Clause. If the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health for Scotland cares to do so, he can before the expiration of the present Act, introduce a separate amending Bill to deal with this matter in a more thorough fashion. That Act placed upon the parish councils burdens which they never contemplated and the late Secretary for Scotland had more difficulty in trying to persuade the parish councils to operate that Act than was experienced in connection with any other Act dealing with local administration in Scotland. The parish councils had been dead against dealing with this particular problem. They always maintained it was a national question which should have been dealt with
nationally and they resented having this particular duty imposed upon them. Now the Minister of Health comes forward with this further proposal which he introduces to us in an apologetic tone. It must have struck the House that the right hon. Gentleman used an apologetic tone especially in connection with Clause 3. He did not seem at all happy when he came to that Clause and seemed to have some doubt as to whether Scottish Members were prepared to support it or not.
Not only the Scottish Members of this House but the members of parish councils throughout Scotland and the people of Scotland generally are entirely opposed to Clause 3, and I hope the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health for Scotland will seriously consider having the Clause amended. As a matter of fact local authorities in Scotland have had enough to do up to the present to keep the local administrative machinery moving without having this additional burden thrust upon them. Hon. Members have already dealt with the position of affairs in Glasgow, Lanarkshire and other districts. In the county from which I come—Fife—we have had the very same difficulties to meet and the very same burdens to bear. Some of our parish councils have been struggling from bygone days with ever-increasing burdens and with overtaxation and now on top of these has come the problem of unemployment. So far as opinion in Scotland has been vocal it has been in favour of having this question dealt with as a national problem and not left to particular districts which are adversely affected. I had intended to draw attention to the comments and decisions of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland, but that has already been done. I am glad attention has been drawn to the recommendations of this Committee which was largely representative of local authorities in Scotland and which went very fully into the question of local taxation. The opinion of a Committee of that description ought to have had some weight with the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he was considering this particular Clause. I hope the matter will be pressed to a Division and the Scottish Members given an opportunity of demonstrating to the Government that this Measure is not acceptable or satisfactory to the people of Scotland. Scottish opinion is against the proposal and the Scottish Members of this House
will not be doing their duty unless they register their protest against it.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. BROAD: I rise to support the postponement of the Second Reading of this Bill, because I think it is about time that the Government under took to handle this question in a thorough-going manner, and no longer continued pushing off an urgent question by these temporary devices. They are inadequate to meet a situation which is at present doing a great deal of harm to the industry of the country and imposing intolerable burdens on those least able to bear them. What is the emergency with which these powers are sought to deal? We are told that largely it is a question of unemployment having decreased the assessable value of many districts and largely increased the charges on those districts. I submit that the provision for unemployment is not a local responsibility and should not be locally imposed. It is a national responsibility, and the present acute state of unemployment is largely due to the policy of the Government--if not the present Government, the late Government, and in the main, although they threw the old captain overboard and put a new captain over us, it is the same crew, and they cannot absolve themselves from responsibility. The Prime Minister, speaking in this House in the present Session, on 13th February, said:
 I think that there is very little doubt that if we had effected our deflation at a slower rate, we should not have had this unemployment." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1923; col. 43, Vol. 160.]
I dare say some hon. Members will recollect those words, in which the Prime Minister took some credit to himself for having been instrumental in bringing about that policy of deflation. If, for the purposes of national policy, unemployment has been created or accentuated, it is a national responsibility, and the Government should take it back and look at it from that point of view. But, from a wider point of view, the whole system of imposing national responsibilities as a charge on local authorities is a wrong and vicious principle. No longer is the parish the economic unit. The nation is the economic unit, and these national responsibilities should be national charges, for the charges imposed on the citizen, whether as taxes or rates, should have relationship either to his
ability to pay or else to the value of the services received. While, as far as services received are concerned, they may be roughly measured by the value of the property occupied for business purposes, it is no indication of ability to pay a share of the national responsibility, and we find that, because of the heavy incidence of rating, many a struggling business concern is being crushed down, running at a loss, and yet having to bear too big a proportion of their share of the national responsibility.
I will give one particular instance. We have, in my own district of Edmonton, a firm interested in making motor vehicles, particularly omnibuses, namely, Messrs. Straker-Squire. They took over a Government factory, paying a lot of money for it, and they considered that they would be able to employ 2,000 workpeople. The Government's policy of deflation intervened, credits were restricted, and Messrs. Straker-Squire were not able to carry on their business, the consequence being that they had to reduce their employee from something like 1,200 people to just over 100, but the rating of their premises amounted to over £9,000 a year. At the present time they are trying to reconstruct the business. They have about 450 employés there, and the charges for local rates on those premises amount to 8s. per week per man. What possibility is there for a business to recover, handicapped by circumstances like that? They have done something else. To try and meet the situation, they have gone to tremendous expense. They have had to rearrange the organisation of the whole of their factory, in order to concentrate their work in a section, and they have declared the rest of their factory void. As it is declared void, we do not get the rates from that part of the district, but as the value of that property is included in the whole assessment of the district, we have to pay from our local rates in Edmonton for the county rates and for the poor rate of the union as though that property were occupied. That will give some idea of the anomalies of the present system.
If you go to the more heavily rated poorer districts, the shopkeepers are getting in arrears with their rates, and many of them are talking about shutting up. Nobody dares open a busi-
ness or alter a house to make a decent shop, but we find instead houses with their forecourts containing a little wooden structure, on little vacant pieces of ground stalls being put up, all over the place, the gutters being crowded with street traders, and the shopkeeper is unable to compete with them because of the heavy burden of rating. The present system of rating is driving the shopkeeper out of his shop, and trade into the gutter, and we are going back and back, simply because the rating in a great many places is heavier than the rental charges, in spite of the fact that those rental charges are so very heavy.
There is another feature of this question. As one of the engineers, I know too many of my men who have been unemployed for anything up to two years —thrifty people, who have cultivated the vice of thrift, as I had to cultivate it. I call it a vice because the ordinary working man, if he spends all his wages on his family, and spends the money well, cannot spend enough, and, therefore, that vice of thrift has to be exercised to try and make some little provision for the future, at the expense of the children in their growing years. I have seen those men exhausting their unemployment benefit from the Exchange, and their own private little resources, and their funds from their union, and at the end of two years living a. miserable existence, finding that week by week, with their little houses, they have got to spend 10s. in rates to relieve the unemployed men who have been even worse off and are on poor relief. It seems to me that a system that robs the unemployed man of the resources of his little thrift in order to maintain the unemployed who have gone past him and are on Poor Law relief is an iniquitous system which ought to be handled right away.
These are some of the considerations that should be understood by the Minister of Health, and I hope he will take them fully into his cognisance. We have had some hon. Members speaking from Scotland, some from the Metropolitan area, and some from outside, and it is unfortunate that we cannot concentrate on one of these points, but have to jump about from one question to another like cats on hot bricks, simply because of the way in which this Measure is presented. I think the thing ought to be taken back and re-drafted, so that the Scottish
question, if it be distinct, could be argued as a distinct question, and we should not all get up in this manner. In regard to the London area, we have the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund for the centre of London, for the London County Council area, but that area does not comprehend London to-day. We have Greater London over the borders, and the people in the City of London and inner London, in their offices and workshops, are employing people who have to live and sleep and go for I heir Poor Law relief, when in need, outside the London County Council area, and therefore get no assistance from the Common Poor Fund of London. In the Edmonton area, which is the centre of our Poor Law union, we have our workhouse and a large infirmary, and during the 20 years I have lived in Edmonton that place has been continually enlarged and the Poor Law responsibilities have grown. But we are fortunate in having two workhouses.
The Strand Union built their workhouse down at Edmonton because it was cheaper. They built a. very big workhouse and big Poor Law schools there, but, as time went on and property became old, that property was pulled down, and the people in the Strand area were forced out into places like Edmonton. The Strand Union workhouse became less and less occupied, until they came to the decision to do away with it Three of the well-to-do unions in London, the Strand. Westminster and, I believe, Bayswater, were able to find that: one workhouse would contain all the poor of the three unions. The Strand Union workhouse is derelict to-day, and standing idle, and has gone out of rating, whereas we in the outer suburbs have had to pay for the cost of the poor who are poor because they have worked in inner London and have not received wages enough to maintain them and to make provision for slack times. I want to suggest to the Minister of Health that when he takes this matter fully into consideration, he should recognise how the rates are made up to-day and where the responsibility for meeting them lies.
The rates are made up, first of all, by the cost of national responsibilities. The maintenance of the floor, of the unemployed, of the insane, is the result of a system which embraces the nation as a single entity, and it should be distributed
all over the nation. There are other national responsibilities, such as education, because, after all, education is not given to the children for the sake of the children themselves. It was never recognised from the first, in 1870, from that point of view, nor was it for the sake of the parents, but it was that the children of this country should receive a certain amount of training and information to make them useful in industry and commerce. Therefore, it is a national responsibility. All these charges of national responsibility should be imposed on the people in proportion to their ability to pay, whether they live in the City of London, or have their business there, or in Bayswater, or anywhere else where they like to segregate themselves away from the mass of the poor people. Secondly, ability to pay cannot be ascertained by the value of the premises which anyone occupies for business purposes or domestic life. The third thing is that those services which are immediately personal, and services such as public libraries, parks, etc., might well be placed on the locality which desires them, but even in them the proportion which each individual should pay should be ascertained on the basis of his income and not on the size of the premises which he occupies.
How often do we find that well-to-do people, in quite comfortable circumstances, say, a man and wife, earning or having a good income, not requiring or desiring a family, who will accommodate themselves in a very small flat, and, therefore, the assessable value of their holding is very low. Next door to them we may find a married couple requiring all the accommodation which is desirable for the decency and health and comfort of their children, having, perhaps, five or six children, and having to pay twice as much, without a quarter of their neighbours' ability to pay. This occurs time after time, and I do think that the Minister of Health should now tackle this question in a whole-hearted manner, for the health, the comfort, the advancement, aye, even the retention of our present position as a nation depends upon these local services being efficiently carried out. The imposition of the cost should be on the basis of ability to pay, and not on the basis of necessity. To tinker with this question any longer will be very detrimental. If our new Minister of Health
desires to make his name, as I hope he will, in the administration of his office, he will tackle this question in a thorough, whole-hearted manner, and see that the inequalities of the present rating system are not continued, recognising that times have changed since Elizabeth reigned in this Realm, and that the circumstances of our social organisation should he changed to meet them.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to put the Scottish case from a Scotsman's point of view. It seems to me that there has been a design on the part of the Government in attaching this Scottish Clause to the two English Clauses. They may have known that we are very desirous of helping our comrades in England, but it looks very much like putting the children in the firing line to try to save themselves as a Government from the guns of the Scotsmen. That seems to be the position of the Government so far as the drafting of this Bill is concerned. In Clause 3 are the words, "any work of public utility instituted." Having had something to do with works, I want to put this question to those in charge of this Bill. Is this class of work something that is not worth doing? If it be not worth doing, why do it? It it be worth doing, why cannot you pay full wages for that class of work? In the second place, every local authority carrying on so-called utility work due, not to local, but to national disorganisation of industry, is going to be called upon to increase its rates. No provision is made in the Bill dealing with any revenue or profit coming from this public utility—and it must be a poor utility that does not bring revenue or profit in some way. No provision is made in the Bill, that since the local authorities a-re not to be allowed to have a clean bill at the end of the work, any revenue or profit following from that utility is to come back in the form of relief to that part of the country which is called upon to pay or subsidise—

Captain ELLIOT: The hon. Member, I am sure, does not wish to misrepresent the Bill. Let me point out it is impossible that any profit should be made under any scheme under the Bill. There is no provision for the parish council supporting any scheme which is going to make profit.

Mr. SULLIVAN: On a point of Order. Did the Minister of Health not say it was possible to give subsidies to private firms?

Mr. HARDIE: I am glad to have had that from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I can give instances that have happened in Scotland of huge profits being made by contractors employed upon unemployed relief work started in 1905 and in 1895, and now we are getting a revenue on the one hand and profit on the other. Therefore I do not see where the interjection applies. It is a very stupid thing indeed to carry out any utility that does not in some way give a return. Even the making of a road is something from which you get a return. If it is to be something from which nothing is to come, why have private contractors at all? Why not start blowing soap bubbles? You might as well call that a. public utility on the basis just given, namely, that nothing is to come from it. In Glasgow, with that kind of labour we changed morass into good ground, where we are now growing corn. Is that not something from which we got a return, and are we not entitled to claim that there ought to he a provision in this Bill, whereby parish councils will recover in the case of any such thing taking place? This means that the parish council have got to take upon their shoulders the additional responsibility of the loans that are outside what is called the Government subsidy. This is a most unfair Clause. It simply means, that in order to guarantee security to the moneylender, the Government go so far, but only so far, to give a security, and then leave a great burden upon the local communities. There are local communities in Scotland to-day suffering intensely from this unemployment, so much so that they see nothing but absolute bankruptcy facing them. I would appeal, therefore, to the Government to take this Bill back, and divide it into English and Scottish sections. It is not good enough to try to hide something wrong which you are going to do to Scotland behind two Clauses which we would like to vote for England. If the Government do not see their way to separate these Clauses in Committee, and give Scottish Members a chance to stand by their people, then the Government will have some real opposition in the later stages.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: I want to refer again to the case of one of the necessitous areas, to which attention has been previously called, namely, Sheffield. The proposal in the Bill with regard to Scotland is a proposal which might very well he extended to all the necessitous areas in England. With regard to Sheffield, it has already contributed out of rates £1,500,000 purely for unemployment. That is to be repaid over a period of five years, being a rate of something like 2s. 9d. in the pound. If extended over 10 years, it means 1s. 4d., and if over 15 years, 11d. In any case, these burdens, whether for a shorter or a longer period, are sufficiently heavy to justify our asking for some extended period of repayment. The other point I want to make is this: In the London area there is an attempt to equalise the rates of the various authorities. There is need for something of the same sort in regard to some of the necessitous areas, more particularly where you find contiguous areas suffering differently. We have in Sheffield two unions—the Sheffield and the Ecclesall Unions. Taking the cost per head of the population for unemployment relief in the four last half-years up to Michaelmas, 1922, there was a contribution from the Sheffield Union of 63s., whereas in the adjoining Ecclesall Union the cost was 35s. 1d. There is surely something wrong with a system which permits two unions within the same city to he treated in such a different way as that. It is very largely a question whether the Sheffield area is suffering from unemployment somewhat more severely than the Ecclesall area. What is true of them applies, to a more or less extent, all over the necessitous areas in the country. Surely it ought not to be beyond the capacity of the Minister of Health to devise some scheme whereby, without making an additional charge to the Exchequer, something in the way of equalisation of the cost of unemployment relief, brought about by national causes, could be effected.

Mr. SHINWELL: It is not the first time that hon. Members on these benches, and, indeed, hon. Members elsewhere, have taken exception to the objectionable practice of this Government in submitting Bills of an omnibus character, for that is exactly what they arc doing this afternoon. We have before us a Bill
which attempts to deal with a special and an exceptional difficulty which has arisen with regard to London boroughs in relation to the question of unemployment relief, and, at the same time, makes a very feeble attempt—a mistaken attempt, in my judgment, and in the judgment of hon. Members on these benches—to deal with the special difficulty affecting Scotland. I submit that the Government, in introducing Bills in this erratic and vacillating fashion, apparently without having given the matter careful consideration, are demonstrating what hon. Members on these benches have thought for some time, and that is that they are incapable of making up their mind as to the right kind of legislation which ought to be introduced. I want to say that, so far as the Scottish section of this House is concerned—and I am very glad to know that hon. Members below the Gangway arc with us in this matter—we are going to offer a most emphatic and determined, and, if necessary, a Lobby protest against conduct of this kind. An indication of the knowledge possessed by Gentlemen who, for the time being, sit on the Treasury Bench, has been indicated by the interjection of the hon. and gallant Member the Under-Secretary for the Scottish Board of Health. I am extremely sorry that the Government cannot be fortified on the Treasury Bench by a person who has the requisite legal knowledge.
If we have on the Treasury Bench a person with such capacity as I suggest, in all probability interjections of that kind would not take place. What have we been told with regard to the schemes which are undertaken by the public authorities in Scotland? That there can be no question of profit-making. To us that is a misunderstanding of the question altogether. Obviously, local authorities in Scotland that have to undertake schemes of public utility, that have to arrange for the provision of work particularly for the unemployed, are compelled—and the Minister of Health on this occasion will endorse my point of view—to employ private contractors to undertake the work. That is one of the conditions which have been laid down. Obviously, if private contractors are to he employed by either the parish councils or by the other local authorities to under-
take work of a public character, then profit-making must enter into the transaction.

Captain ELLIOT: indicated dissent.

Mr. SH INWELL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, I observe, shakes his head. I must confess that if he disapproves of that point of view his knowledge of local authority transactions in Scotland is far from complete. I happen to have been a representative on the largest local authority in Scotland. I know the Glasgow Corporation were compelled by the Scottish Board of Health—that is by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own Department, and he ought to know something of the affairs of his own Department, though I confess I have very grave doubts of that, having regard to some of the things said by hon. and right hon. Gentleman 'recently on -the Treasury Bench—to employ private contractors when it was proved conclusively that if we had undertaken the work by direct labour we would have saved large sums of money to the ratepayers. That being so, I contend that profit-making does enter into transactions of this kind.
I must say a word in endorsement of what has been said from these Benches, and from the Benches below the Gangway, with regard to the pitiable plight of the parish councils in Scotland. With very great respect to the Metropolitan boards of guardians who, I know, are in very grave difficulties, and who have been placed in those difficulties because of the refusal of the late Government—and the present Government—to undertake full and complete responsibility for this national problem and difficulty—with very great respect, the position of the parish councils in Scotland is even more serious. It has been aggravated to a considerable degree, because we in Scotland have never held the right to provide relief for able-bodied destitute persons. It has been the other way about on this side of the border. That responsibility, however, was placed upon the shoulders of the parish councils by the late Government, and, I presume, that has been retained by the existing Government. If that be so, the Government ought to come to the assistance of the Scottish parish councils, not in this mean, miserable, pettifogging manner but in a constructive
way. What I submit you ought to have done in this particular instance, knowing what I do of the almost bankrupt position of the Scottish parish councils, knowing many of the men associated with the parish councils who have accepted the responsibility to administer the affairs of such bodies, and now are threatening to send in their resignations and refusing to undertake responsibility in face of the serious difficulties which confront them—knowing, I say, these facts, I ask this House to reject a Bill of this character which neither deals with one question or the other in a proper rational constructive fashion.
Lastly, I submit that we from Scotland have a real grievance on this occasion. I give place to no one—and I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent- Scottish constituencies will agree with this—in my desire to maintain the union as between England and Scotland, perhaps with this exception, that we ought to have autonomous powers vested in us in Scotland to make it unnecessary to come down here and submit to the kind of things thrust upon us. After all, this question of unemployment is perhaps the most serious question we in Scotland have to face, because it enters into all our discussions, on almost every question, whether in parish council, town council, education authorities or other local bodies. At some time or other the question of unemployment comes in. We are faced with it on all hands.
When I was a member of the Glasgow Corporation we could not discuss the question of the extension of the tramway without knowing that we had to come up to this House and ask for powers. The question of unemployment entered into that. We wanted to construct new sewers, new houses, and other things that were absolutely essential in the interests of the people of our great city. We had to consider the whole question of unemployment. That being so, I say that in Bills of a specific character affecting Scotland and Scottish interests, we ought to have them submitted in a complete and isolated form without regard to the questions which affect London or any other part of the country. Have not London Members made a somewhat similar complaint on their side? I hope the hint will not be lost on hon. Members in this House. At all events, we in Scotland are not going
to take this kind of thing lying down. I
tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman representing the Government on the Treasury Bench—and I ask him to convey that information to his right hon. Friend the Member of the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law), whose patriotism has for the moment apparently been lost, because there is little, very little, real interest taken in Scottish affairs even in Glasgow—that so far as Scotland is concerned we expect much more from this Assembly than we have got up to the present time; much more from him if our criticism is to be stilled.

Captain ELLIOT: I thank the House for the genial and kindly way hon. Members have deal with the Bill under discussion. This includes the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell), whose repeated incursions into Debate we all admire, even if we are not in a position to parallel them. Let me first take the proposal in Clause 3, which has raised a certain amount of discussion, the proposal whereby a parish council may make a contribution towards the cost- of some work of public utility which another local authority may be carrying out. Hon. Members in many parts of the House have joined in heaping denunciation upon this innocent proviso, and have explained that it was likely to place a perfectly unwanted burden upon the parish councils. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. A. Shaw) grew quite lyrical in his pity for the poor bale parish councils, which, he said repeatedly, with a break in his voice, might have to subsidise some great and wealthy local authority. One would scarcely believe that this proposal wits inserted at the direct request of one of the strongest deputations of parish councils which over came to this City of London. That deputation met the Secretary for Scotland no longer ago than 1st March. It included the chairman of the Glasgow Parish Council, the chairman of the Govan Parish Council the chairman of the Aberdeen Parish Council, and representatives of nearly all the principal authorities of that kind in Scotland. One of their specific points was that parish councils should be afforded these facilities, and this proviso was inserted, I think, largely at their special request, and they have expressed themselves as satisfied with it. To take the general idea which has been brought forward in Debate, it would appear that this was some dark
scheme for subsidising wages whereby the local authority in the case of carrying out schemes may be enabled to pay under the proper rate. There is no such intention. I do not believe that there is any power to do this under the Bill. If there be, I certainly undertake here and now that that shall be put right in Committee, and I would call upon hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite with their utmost ingenuity to help me in framing the words which will make the intention of the Government perfectly clear in regard to this Bill.
The third point put to me on this same question was that, even supposing these two questions were both settled—that the desires of the parish councils have been considered, that there was no question of paying a lower rate than the trade union rate of wages—still, it was said, some miserable fellow might have that curious thing, some profit in some shape or other, out of this proposal, and that that must be guarded against at all costs. I have guarded against it so far as was in my power, but I shall be willing to guard against it still further if hon. Members will show me how. Power has been specifically taken in this Bill that a scheme must be approved by the Scottish Board of Health, and, what is more, it is not our intention in any way to give such subsidies to any scheme without it is being carried out by direct labour employed by the local authorities themselves. These three points can be cleared up by the assistance of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. If there is any further point which they would wish explained I shall be very happy here and now to deal with it. I gather, there being no response, that my explanation has satisfied lion. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. SULLIVAN: What bas the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say respecting the case in the Maryhill Ward of Glasgow where, in connection with the roads on a housing scheme, we in the locality wanted it to be done by direct labour, and the Board insisted on a contract being taken?

Captain ELLIOT: Any scheme put forward under the provisions of this Act will be a scheme to be carried out directly by the local authorities themselves and not carried out by the intermediary of a contractor. I hope that will satisfy the hon. Member.

Mr. SHINWELL: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to mean that as a definite condition of the provision of work that no contractors will be allowed to quote for the work itself?

Captain ELLIOT: That is the present intention of the Government. But hon. Members will realise that we have to meet the most minute criticism made against what might be considered a perilous proposal. There was the further point put by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. I think it was a complaint that the parish council might be compelled to pay towards helping some great local authority. I would reply to that by merely pointing out that you have the right whereby a parish council may make arrangements with any local authority or any public authority, and the power is entirely in the hands of the parish council. It may be that some of the smaller towns having a parish council think that the sum which it, is expending in relief of distress had better be expended on a joint scheme with some local authority. If it sees advantage to itself in carrying that scheme or such joint scheme, then it shall have the power to do so. I do not think, considering that the parish councils which have repeatedly asked for that and, so far as we know, have expressed themselves satisfied with the nature of the provision we have made in this Bill, that hon. Members in any part, of the House can undertake to take exception to that power under the conditions I have explained.
There is one further matter which is, perhaps, of especial interest to Scottish Members, and it brings me to my third and last point. A complaint has been made that it is impossible for Scottish Members to give their opinion on particular Sections of this Bill. I would point out, however, that it will he perfectly possible for them, by opposing any particular Clauses of the Bill, to state clearly and emphatically their opinion with regard to any particular Section of it, and I hope that the suggestion which was made by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, that lie was unwilling to press his Amendment to a Division, may be implemented in practice, and that he will find it possible to allow the Second Reading of the Bill to pass without a Division, taking exception, if he desires to do so, to any particular
Section of it by opposing when we come to that particular point in the Bill. That can be done both in Committee and on the Floor of this House, because during the Report stage also there will be an opportunity for expressing such opinion on particular Clauses of the Bill. The point has been frequently made that this is a matter which should not have been dealt with by local charges, but is a matter of Imperial concern, and that the burden should be placed upon Imperial funds. May I point out, however, particularly to my Scottish colleagues, that this is exactly one of the cases in which we find that we are associated with the senior partner in a way from which it is very difficult for us to escape, and from which we certainly cannot escape in any such hasty fashion as would be necessary at this moment?

Mr. SHINWELL: Not the senior partner.

Captain ELLIOT: Let me say the Government. Perhaps, however, my hon. Friend and myself had better discuss that outside. I think that members of the Scottish Home Rule Parliament which meets at Westminster to discuss its affairs should not occupy all their time in discussing them on the Floor of this House, but should also discuss them in the usual channels for such discussions, such as the Smoking Room and other places.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree to the part of this Bill which affects Scotland being discussed in that way?

Captain ELLIOT: I was trying to point out one of the difficulties of that when I was interrupted by the hon. Gentleman. It has been said that they would see what they could get out of me, but I would point out that it is not what they can get out of me, but what I can get out of the Treasury, and that will show what I meant by referring to the senior or the Government partner. It is all very well for us to discuss whether any particular Clauses would be most suitable for Scotland, and whether the burden should be Imperial and not local, but the English system has been for many years that distress due to unemployment should he relieved out of local rates, and it would be very difficult for us to claim that the whole English system should
suddenly be upset because of some emergency which had suddenly arisen in Scotland. We should find it impossible to have the unemployed maintained out of Imperial funds North of the Cheviots, and out of local funds South of the Cheviots, and that is a condition of things which we must face. It is no use talking about the matter in the abstract. The fact remains that this burden is a local burden in England and has been a local burden in England, and, as far as we can at present see, it will be. It is impossible, therefore, for us to suggest that England should both bear its own local burdens and then, in addition, make a subvention in aid of us in Scotland. It is useless for me to pretend to my colleagues that I should have the slightest chance of carrying in this or any other House of Commons a proposal of that nature.
Finally, let me say that this burden is undoubtedly a new and very severe one upon the Scottish parish councils, and I cannot withhold from them my admiration for the way in which they have shouldered it, novel, and in many ways unexpected as it is. They have grappled with it in a way which deserves the utmost admiration, and in a way which has shown their great financial solvency and great willingness to do whatever could be done for the relief of the unemployed. They have protested, and have shown how, in a great many cases, they were bearing a very heavy burden, and one which, at times, they complained was beyond their power to bear. In some cases hon. Members from England, when commiserating with us, have not realised that many of the suggestions which they put forward have already been put into practice—that, for instance, Glasgow is divided into only two parishes, the parish of Glasgow and the parish of Govan—

Major McKENZIE WOOD: No, there are about six.

Captain ELLIOT: There is at the present moment, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, a proposal before the Scottish Office to bring Cathcart into the area of Glasgow Parish, and upon a proposal such as that, on which my Noble Friend will have to adjudicate, it would obviously be very injudicious of me to make a pronouncement as to the merits.
But no doubt, whatever steps are taken to amalgamate areas, difficulties and troubles will arise. It has been suggested that we might arrive at some spreading of the burdens, but the parish councils have considered that themselves and dismissed the problem of probing into the parish of origin as one that would not yield any financial results commensurate with the labour involved. As I have said, we recognise that the parish councils have shouldered the burden which has been placed upon them in this emergency in a way deserving of our utmost admiration, and their efforts have had this result, that at any rate we have got so far as we have got through our third winter of unemployment in a way which no Member of this House would have ventured to predict in envisaging the question in 1919 and 1920. The public health has been maintained in a most extraordinarily efficient fashion, and the work that has been done has had its reward.
I am speaking from the Floor of this House, not only to hon. Members, but to the parish councils, and I would beg of them to continue to assist us with their help in this grave national crisis. To grapple with it we must use every possible means at our disposal. This burden is not one that we have placed on their shoulders; it is an emergency provision. We are extending the Bill for one year only, and in a year's time hon. Members will have the opportunity again to review the situation and discuss it in the light of the further experience that we shall have had. If it is necessary to make further provision in any particular way, then we shall have, in only 12 months' time, a chance of bringing forward those things which we say will have to be done. Let me point out once again, however, that any scheme of reorganisation which involves a local charge in England and an Imperial charge in respect of Scotland will not work. These things must be dealt with for the Kingdom as a whole. In the provisions which have been made in the Unemployment Insurance Bill a very great help has been given in regard to the burden which would otherwise be cast on the local authorities. The gap periods have been shortened, the benefits have been extended to dependants, and in this machinery we have a device by which it will be possible to adjust more equitably the differences between the central and the local authorities. To set up a third
kind of machinery for dealing with this problem is not, I believe, a matter of practical politics now, and I do not think it will come into the ambit of practical politics in the years immediately before us. I desire, as I have said, to thank hon. Members for their courtesy in dealing with this provision, and for the practical criticisms which they have offered. We have had a full and, I think, a very instructive Debate, and I hope that now the House will find it possible to come to a decision.

Mr. WEBB: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not feel aggrieved if I repeat that the House has a certain grievance in the way in which this Measure has been drafted. We must repeat our objections, first of all, to mixing up a Scottish provision with the London provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has a real grievance against the principle of the Scottish Clauses of this Bill, but, in view of the fact that it will be possible, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has pointed out, to vote against those Clauses in Committee, and again to challenge the decision of the House on Report, I venture to hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment to a Division. This Bill is a matter of urgency as regards the Metropolis. Scotland, after all, has got time, and, although the Scottish Members have a grievance against the Government, yet the Act which this Bill proposes to extend actually expired on the 31st December, and it would be a calamity if this Measure were not now given a Second Reading in order that that may be put right.
Nevertheless, I would venture to point out that it will not be sufficient merely to go on with these emergency measures. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to think it was some mitigation of his proposal that we should have it all over again at this time next year. It seems to me that that is taking up the time of the House and the energy of hon. Members quite unnecessarily. This time next year unemployment will not be over, and the difficulties of the parish councils will not be at an end. They will still go on having to bear this huge burden, and surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman might have indicated that, before that time comes, he
would have been able to bring forward some Measure which would deal with this matter of local government in Scotland, just as his colleague may be expected to deal with it in regard to England, in order that the matter may be put on a more stable basis. Otherwise we are only aggravating a situation which was bad enough before. I do not wish to prolong the discussion. We have made our protest, and I hope my hon. Friends who speak for Scotland will be content with opposing in Committee these Clauses relating to Scotland, and then, if they are so disposed, challenging the decision of the House on Report. I hope they will be content to let the Second Reading be taken to-night, and I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh not to press his Amendment.

Mr. FALCONER: I rise, not for the purpose of continuing any longer the discussion on the various points which have been raised, but only to say that, so far as I am concerned, and so far as those Members from Scotland are concerned, whose views I know, we cannot possibly accept the kind of explanation which has been offered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Scottish Office. He has really given us nothing, and has not given us any hope of anything, except that he would like to have his Bill if we are so obliging as to give it to him. The real cause of the difficulty is much more deeply seated than he seems to be aware of. In the first place, the Poor Law authorities in Scotland have attained their very efficient management, which is a model, I believe, to England and to other countries, by the very fact that they have been confined to their proper business of looking after those who are really poor, and have not had to deal with the altogether different problem of those who are unemployed. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be good enough to ask anyone who has studied and is familiar with the history of the Poor Law, he will find that that is the reason why they have been able to avoid some of the very real perils of Poor Law administration. That is a very powerful reason for not mixing up unemployment with Poor Law business.
7.0 P.M.
There is a second reason, that no justification has been shown for placing upon
the shoulders of these parish councils the enormously added burden of dealing with unemployment out of the rates. I have not heard a word which has a bearing upon that. There has been no justification for that, and it is not right in principle. Another reason is that it is grossly inequitable that the parish councils should have to shoulder the burden of the unemployment of people who may not be earning their living in the parishes in which they live. There is not a word, again, to be said in favour of that. All that we are told is that in England—as I venture to think—a very much worse system prevails, and l am surprised not to have heard more from English parishes outside London in regard to that. I suppose the reason is that they have been accustomed, under their less equitable system, to throw the burden on the guardians who administer the Poor Law, but surely that is no reason why an equally inequitable system should be adopted in Scotland, creating the anomalies which have been referred to by hon. Member after hon. Member. Has any reason been given why this question should not he dealt with according to the views expressed by hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies?
We have had a long Debate, and I have been here all the time, with the exception of a few minutes. With one voice all the Scottish Members who have spoken have

been against this Bill so far as the Clause relating to Scotland is concerned. All that we have been told is, as I understand it—I shall be corrected if I am mistaken—that in the Committee to which this Bill is to be referred upstairs, Scotland will have an opportunity of expressing its opinion. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman send it to the Scottish Standing Committee, or will he send the part of it relating to Scotland to the Scottish Standing Committee; so that, at least, there will be some substance in the suggestion that Scottish Members, on a question which is far more important than the dimensions of the Bill indicate, should have an opportunity of dealing with a purely Scottish question in the manner their constituents desire it to be dealt with? If it were suggested that in one or other of those ways the difficulty might be got over, I should be in favour of adopting the course suggested by the last speaker of not going into the Lobby against the Second Reading. If, however, we have no hope of giving Scottish opinion a determining voice upon this Scottish question, I trust the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) will go to a Division. If he does, I shall be in the same Lobby with him.

Question put, "That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 53.

Division No. 63.]
AYES.
[7.6 p.m.


Adams D,
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cope, Major William


Alexander, E. E, (Leyton, East)
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bruford, R.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)


Ammon, Charles George
Buckingham, Sir H.
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Buckle, J.
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Daiziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)


Banbury. Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Butcher, Sir John George
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Banks, Mitchell
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Button, H. S.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Barnes, A.
Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Doyle, N. Grattan


Barnston, Major Harry
Cadogan, Major Edward
Duncan, C.


Batey, Joseph
Cairns, John
Dunnico, H.


Becker, Harry
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R,
Ede, James Chuter


Bellairs. Commander Carlyon W.
Cautley, Henry Strother
Edge, Captain Sir William


Berry, Sir George
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Edmonds, G.


Betterton, Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Charleton, H. C.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Blundell, F. N.
Clayton, G. C.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Bowdler. W. A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W,
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K,
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)


Bowyer. Capt. G. E. W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Brass, Captain W.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Fawkes, Major F. H.


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Lansbury, George
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Fremantle, Lieut -Colonel Francis E.
Leach, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon.Sir. S. (Ecclesall)


Furness, G. J.
Lee, F.
Robertson J. D. (Islington, W.)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Robinson,' Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Gates, Percy
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Locker- Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Lorden, John William
Royce, William Stapleton


Goff, Sir R. Park
Lorimer, H. D.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Gosling, Harry
Lowth, T.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Saklatvala, S.


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Lunn, William
Salter, Dr. A.


Greaves-Lord, Walter
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
McLaren, Andrew
Sanders, Rt. Hon.Sir Robert A.


Grigg, Sir Edward
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Groves, T.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sandon, Lord


Grundy, T. W.
Maddocks, Henry
Shakespeare, G. H.


Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Manville, Edward
Shepperson, E. W.


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
March, S.
Shipwright, Captain D.


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Margesson, H. D. R
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Singleton, J. E.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Hall, Rt.-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'i'W.D'by)
Middleton, G.
Snell, Harry


Halstead, Major D.
Milne, J. S. Ward law
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Sparkes, H. W.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Stanley, Lord


Harris, Percy A.
Morris, Harold
Steel, Major S. Strang


Harrison, F. C.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Harvey, Major S. E.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Hawke, John Anthony
Murchison, C. K.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Sugden, Sir Wilfred H.


Hayday, Arthur
Nesbltt, Robert C.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P (Flnchley)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford. Henley)


Hennessy, Major J. R- G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L.(Exeter)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Harriotts, J.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Tillett, Benjamin


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Hill, A.
O'Grady, Captain James
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Oliver, George Harold
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hodqe, Rt. Hon. John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wallace, Captain E.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Paget, T. G.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Paling, W.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withigton)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Webb, Sidney


Hopkins. John W. W.
Pease, William Edwin
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Penny, Frederick George
Wells, S. R.


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Perkins, Colonel E, K.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hudson, Capt. A.
Peto, Basil E.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hughes, Collingwood
Philipson, H. H.
Whiteley, W.


Hume, G. H.
Pielou, D. P.
Whitla, Sir William


Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Ponsonby. Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Irving, Dan
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F.S.
Pretyman, Rt, Hon. Ernest G.
Winterton, Earl


Jarrett, G. W. S.
Privett, F. J.
Wise, Frederick


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Wolmer, Viscount


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Remer, J. R.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rentoul, G. S.
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Kenyon, Barnet
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lamb, J. Q.
Ritson, J.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


NOES.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Clarke, Sir E. C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Fairbairn, R. R.


Bonwick, A.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Falconer, J.


Broad, F. A.
Darbishire, C. W.
Foot, Isaac


Burnie, Major J. (Bootie)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Chapple, W. A.
Edmonds, G.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)




Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Maxton, James
Sullivan, J.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Millar, J. D.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Muir, John W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hillary, A. E.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hinds, John
Newbold, J. T. W.
Welsh, J. C.


Hoggs, James Myles
Phillipps, Vivian
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Sexton, James
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Shinwell, Emanuel
Wright, W.


Linfield, F. C.
Sinclair, Sir A.



Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stephen, Campbell
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Mr. A. Shaw and Mr. Hardle.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sturrock, J. Leng



Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: May I ask you, Sir, whether, in view of the fact that Part III on the Bill is exclusively Scottish in character, you would be prepared to direct that that part of the Bill be sent to the Scottish Standing Committee?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Standing Order with reference to sending Bills to the Scottish Standing Committee deals only with whole Bills relating exclusively to Scotland. That is not the case with this Bill. Therefore, I have no power to send it to the Scottish Standing Committee.

Captain BENN: Is it not competent for this House to give an instruction that the Bill should be divided into two parts—one to go to the Scottish Committee and the other to the Standing Committee?

Mr. SPEAKER: That point, I think, should be raised before the Second Reading. It is competent for the Government, if they please, to move a Motion sending part of the Bill to one Committee, and part to another.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not possible to raise that point now?

Captain BENN: Inasmuch as the House has the power to keep a Bill downstairs, would not that same Standing Order permit the House to instruct that the Bill be divided in the way suggested?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing to that effect in the Standing Order.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is there no remedy at all?

Orders of the Day — FEES (INCREASE) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 6.—(Fees under the Weights and Measures Acts.)

The Board of Trade shall be entitled to charge on the comparison and verification of local standards and other standards for the use of local authorities or their officers such fees as may be approved by the Treasury.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "may be approved by the Treasury," and to insert instead thereof the words
 they may fix with the approval of the Treasury and after consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to them to be concerned.
I understand that this is acceptable to the Government. The Amendment is tabled at the instance of the Association of Municipal Corporations.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): I am very glad to accept the Amendment. As a matter of fact, I have already invited the Association of Local Authorities of England and Scotland to come and meet my Department in order to discuss the most convenient way of making these charges.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Power of Trustees of British Museum to make regulations imposing charges for admission.)

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained recently that he had examined all the various considerations bearing on the matter and was prepared not to proceed with the Clause. It was the desire of the Trustees, in making the Regulations, as far as possible to deal with all the cases which had been provided for, but I think it is the general
feeling in the House that when all these provisions had to be made it was really hardly worth the trouble to pass the Clause. My right hon. Friend has had an opportunity of considering all these aspects of the case and is satisfied that the exceptions he was bound to make were very numerous, and he is prepared, after the general views expressed on Second Reading and in the Committee, to ask the House not to proceed with the Clause.

Mr. FOOT: Some of us were here on the 7th of the present month when the President of the Board of Trade played the part of the Duke of York and led his army up the hill. He has to-day led his army down the hill, and we have watched the second operation with very much more pleasure than we watched the first. The Government now desire to get rid of the Clause, and, although we all express our pleasure at that, yet having regard to its history, I think something should be said by way of decent burial. The proposal contained in the Clause has had a short life and a very exciting one. It was born seven or eight months ago of an unnatural political union, and it has led a very precarious existence. The parties to that union have since separated. I do not know how long the separation will last. I believe there has been some talk, by one of the parties at any rate, of the restitution of conjugal rights. In the meantime the child had disappeared, we hoped for ever, and it was certainly a surprise to us all when the President of the Board of Trade on the 7th of this month produced the child in this House and asked us all to acknowledge that it had very sturdy limbs. We did not think so. We did not think very much of it. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, more out of loyalty to his chief than out of admiration of the child, lavished praise upon it later in the Debate. The Noble Lord had the conduct of the Measure in the Committee. It was by his own extreme exertions that the child was saved almost at the last moment by one vote. He will remember, and I think hon. Members will remember, what happened. The child was brought back. Great attacks were made on it. I think the newly-appointed nurse, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, just
rescued it from the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), and it was found to the surprise of us all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of all people in the world, who only a couple of days before patted the child on the head and called it a little ray of sunshine, snatched it from the arms of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and put it to death. That is the end, so we are told, of this proposal. I am not surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his place. I think he has hardly had time to get the blood washed off his hands. All we are concerned for is that this proposal shall have a decent burial. I hope when we bury it to-night, we shall recall the touching lines which were used on the death of a newly-born child—
 If I was so quickly done for,
I wonder what I was begun for.
The Government has complained all along, and has been complaining during the last few weeks, that it was not sufficient time to deal with the affairs of the nation. It is a very strange commentary on their complaints that they should have occupied the time of the House with this wretched proposal. They occupied time on the Second Reading; they occupied time in Grand Committee and caused the outflow of large quantities of printers' ink in the newspapers, and they have occupied the time of the House in questions later. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are wasting it now."] I think not. I think it is necessary that some comments should be made, and I hope before I supply reasons why I welcome the rejection of the proposal, I may be allowed to refer the Government to a line or two that appeared in the "Morning Post." last week. It was a Limerick, and it ran in this way—:—
 A cheerful old bear at the Zoo
Said I never have time to feel blue.
If it bores me, you know,
To walk to and fro,
I reverse it and walk fro and to'.
That seems to be the policy of the Government in occupying the time of the House with so preposterous a proposal as this. I congratulate the Government on their responsiveness in this instance to the public demand. It is very rarely that the Press has been so unanimous as it has been during the last few weeks on this matter. I think Mr. Punch shot the last arrow that killed Cock Robin. At
any rate all the Press have taken a very fair attitude on this question. I should like to know if it is possible to have an assurance that not merely is the Clause withdrawn now but it is withdrawn altogether.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Member is perhaps not aware that the Report stage of the Bill is the final stage before it reaches the Statute book.

Mr. FOOT: I am not speaking, as think the rest of the House will understand, of the Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman will remember that only a few months ago this actual proposal was contained in another Bill. All I want is the assurance—and I think the House would like to have it—that this folly is not to he repeated. If it is repeated, if they have any such intention in their mind, I hope the right hon. Gentleman or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will again consult the terms of the Act of Parliament, that set up the Museum, and they will find that under the terms of the Act of 1753 not only was free access on the part of the public stipulated for, but there was this further provision:
 The Museum and collection shall he preserved and maintained not only for the inspection of the learned and the curious but for the general use and benefit of the public.
I hope this will be a lesson to the Government, and that it will put an end once and for all to these shabby proposals. It is quite possible for a junior clerk in a Government Department, who couples a, faculty for figures with an entire lack of imagination and intelligence, to make all kinds of suggestions for increasing the national revenue. Turnstiles may be put round our public parks and commons, and admission fees might he charged for our abbeys and cathedrals, and even for the Galleries of this House. That might Ice called economy, but it would really be money received at the expense of the impoverishment of the nation. There is nothing that reconciles the taxpayer so much to the burden of taxation as letting him know he can get something for his money. Carrying out that suggestion, will the Government act upon these lines —let the people freely enjoy their own property and let the children grow up to know that great treasures like the museums and our great buildings are part of the common inheritance, and make easy
the access to beautiful things. Take away the turnstiles and the high walls, throw open as much as you can, and lock up as little as you can. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman in his speech on the 7th of this month used the illustration of the National Gallery to justify this proposal, let me ask the Government now to go on so that the National Gallery may be free, just as they insist that the Museum shall be, and instead of spending so much money to keep people out, why not spend some part of the same money to bring people in?
I will ask the House to allow me to give one quotation from someone who will command authority in this House, which was written many years ago upon a theme very similar to the one we are now discussing. Oliver Goldsmith, in "A Citizen of the World," wrote the following on his visit to Westminster Abbey:
 Leaving this part of the Temple, we made up to an iron gate, through which, my companion told me, we were to pass in order to see the monuments of the Kings. Accordingly, I marched up without further ceremony, and was going to enter when the person who held the gate in his hands told me that I must pay him first. I was surprised at such a demand, and asked the man whether the people of England kept a show, whether the paltry sum he demanded was not a national reproach, and whether it was not more to the honour of the country to let their magnificence and antiquities he openly seen than thus meanly to tax the curiosity which tended to their own honour.
It is because I believe the proposal in Clause 9 was a shabby proposal which would have degraded the nation that I am happy to support its withdrawal, and I am glad that in this instance the Government have yielded to what is a right public demand.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I hope the Government will profit by the experience that it has had over this Clause. This is not merely an isolated Clause. It is the expression of a policy which the Government has been pursuing in regard to what it calls economy. I would beg the Government when it withdraws Clause 9 of this Bill on principle, to remember that it should apply the same principle in various other directions. The Government cannot economise by shutting off the treasures of the nation and allowing them to be enjoyed only
by a small class of the nation. The whole principle of Clause 9 is this, that the Government, possessing great treasures, finds that certain people are prepared to pay entrance fees in order to enjoy those treasures—treasures of pictures, treasures of books, treasures of art, treasures of science. A paltry £10,000 is involved. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman said that it was because they had discovered they were not going to get much out of it that they have decided to withdraw the Clause. For goodness sake do not let us give these pettifogging reasons for such action as this.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand what I said. I said that when we had made all the provisions which we thought absolutely necessary to enable all the persons to whom the hon. Member refers to have free access, that it would not be worth while putting a charge upon those who could pay.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am afraid that that was not the statement that was made, but I do not desire to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, and if I have done so I willingly withdraw. I heard the Noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade telling us about the valuable £10,000 that were to be got out of this charge for admission. Then I heard the hon. Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Webb) asking how much the turnstiles would cost, and how much would have to be paid for someone to look after the entrance, and so on. These considerations are absolutely pettifogging, unworthy of this House and unworthy of the Government, when we are dealing with great national treasures such as we have in the British Museum at Bloomsbury and the Natural Science Museum at South Kensington. I congratulate those who have opposed this Clause. It is not the kind of economy that we want. This nation is not in the Bankruptcy Court yet; very far from it. This nation is not in a position that it has to save sixpences on the culture of the people that it is its duty to look after. The intellectual and the moral condition of our people is far more important than the money resources that the Government can get. We are not in a position that we need to save sixpences at the expense of that moral and intellectual culture. I
hope the Government will remember the experience that it has had in trying to get this abominable Clause through the House of Commons, and that it will take thought and not practice economy at the expense of the minds and the moral character of the people of this country.

Question, "That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 10.—(Fees for holding inquiries.)

Where under any Act of Parliament a Government Department is authorised or required to hold an inquiry, arid the costs of the inquiry are made payable by any local authority or other person, or in such manner and by such persons as the Department or the officer holding the inquiry may direct, then, notwithstanding anything in such Act, such costs may include a fee in respect of the services of any officer of the Department engaged in the inquiry not exceeding five guineas a day.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
This is another relic of the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, of which the previous Clause was also a relic. This Amendment and the subsequent Amendments which stand on the Paper in my name, are put down on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations, representing all the large towns and urban districts in the country, and also on behalf of the County Councils Association. Therefore, I hope the House will forgive me if I press upon the Government the view that is unanimously held by the county councils and the various municipal authorities throughout the country. This Clause proposes to place on the local authorities a charge which at present is being borne by the national Exchequer. The Bill which we were discussing prior to this Bill sought in a small measure to help to case the burdens of local authorities, and when we know that the outcry from all districts is for a reduction rather than an increase of local rates, it is somewhat ironical that in this Clause we are seeking to transfer from the national Exchequer a burden which up to the present has been borne by the State, and to place it on the backs of the already overburdened ratepayers. We are told that the amount is not much, but I submit that until we have redressed the grievances of the local authorities with regard to the incidence of national and local charges, the local authorities have a right to protest against any burdens being added to their shoulders which they have not had up to the present.
I submit that there is no real economy achieved in this Clause. This Clause seeks to place on the local authority the burden of the cost of inquiries held not at their instigation but on behalf of the Government Department concerned. The real economy would be to reduce the number of these inquiries by various Government Departments from Whitehall, and the best way to do that would be to ensure that the burden of the cost is placed, not on the local authorities, but upon the authorities at Whitehall. It is said, truly, that it is the desire of the authorities at Whitehall to carry out certain matters of local interest; but the local authorities are complaining of the number of visits from officials at headquarters, and they maintain that a great many of them might be reduced. During the period of the War, apart from the ordinary cessation of local Government work, these official inquiries were much less frequent than previously. We find from experience that under the 1909 Housing Act the limit of the fee which might be charged to local authorities for inquiries under the very housing schemes was removed. Under the original Act the fee was £3 3s., but under the 1909 Act the limit was removed, and there was no limit as to the charge which might be made by the Ministry of Health, which was then the Local Government Board, with regard to the inquiries to be held respecting housing schemes. The result of the removal of the limit has been the placing of a great burden upon local authorities.
I have had handed to me by the Association of Municipal Corporations two accounts which were presented last year to the Borough of Kingston-upon-Hull for inquiries under the Housing Acts, which lasted for one day only. An inquiry was held on the 20th March, last year, and the fees charged to the borough for the inspector for that one day amounted to £30 8s. 6d. The borough protested, but what is the use of protesting against a Government Department? On the 31st August, another one-day inquiry was held under the Housing Acts, and the charge made was £38 11s. 3d. These charges, apart from the merits of the case, are excessive. If the Clause be not deleted, I have an Amendment down to limit the charge to £3 3s. per day instead of £5 5s. The real economy would be to place the charges upon the Government Department
which makes the inquiry, so that it will have some incentive to economy. The fewer inquiries that are held the better it will be, both for headquarters and the local authorities.

Mr. FAIRBAIRN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Member does not fully appreciate how very limited is the application of this Clause. It is not a Clause which says that the costs of an inquiry are to be borne by the local authority where those costs are not already borne. All that the Clause does say is that where an inquiry is held and where under the existing law the costs of the inquiry are made payable by the local authority or by some person, the cost shall cover the fee payable to the officer who holds the inquiry, and that fee shall not exceed £5 5s. a day. Therefore this particular Clause, which merely fixes the maximum amount of fee at, £5 5s., only applies to cases where the costs of the whole inquiry are chargeable to the local authority. There are some Acts of Parliament under which a fee is chargeable for the services of the officer who holds the inquiry, but no limit is fixed, as I think is the case under the Housing Acts, so that the Government Department can charge 10 guineas a day if it likes. In future, if this Clause passes, they will never be able to charge more than £5 5s. a day. Under other Acts the fee is £3 3s. In these Acts directing that the cost of the inquiry shall be charged to the local authorities, it was thought that £3 3s. would cover the costs of the officer holding the inquiry. To-day £3 3s. does not cover the cost, and that has been realised in connection with Private Bill legislation within the last two or three years by the insertion of a Clause which provides that in regard to inquiries there shall be a fee of £5 5s. charged. Therefore, what we propose in this Clause is that wherever the Government Department now charge more than five guineas, it shall only be entitled to charge five guineas, and where it is charging three guineas, it will be entitled to charge five guineas. If we can get the expense down to a pre-War level, I am sure my hon. Friend would he very willing to review these fees, as he certainly does not want to make money out of local authorities. He merely desires that where the intention of Parlia-
ment is that the local authority should bear the cost, the fee should be commensurate for the purpose. I can assure my hon. Friend that the fact that five guineas is going to be chargeable as a fee will certainly have no effect in making the Government Department anxious to institute inquiries of any sort or kind. Most of these inquiries are inquiries which are asked for by local authorities, or inquiries which Parliament has decided are necessary to be held in protection of the ratepayers and taxpayers. I submit that all this Clause does is to bring into conformity what has been the common practice of the last three years, and I hope this Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. SHINWELL: It has been argued throughout in connection with this Bill that the primary purpose is to raise revenue. Yet the right hon. Gentleman now tells us, as I believe he did on one or two occasions in the Committee stage, that this will not impose any additional burden on local authorities, and that local authorities will not be mulcted in any more charges than are at present imposed upon them. If that be so, if that is used as an argument now in quite an ingenious way, how in heaven's name do you expect to raise additional revenue? I think the House is entitled to have sufficient justification for passing a Clause of this kind before it accepts it. I maintain now, as I maintained on the Committee, and as I hope to maintain when I move the rejection of the Bill on the Third Reading, that there is not the slightest prospect of raising revenue of any material kind so far as the State is concerned, and that the whole Bill itself has been so emasculated that it will be of no advantage to the nation in any form. I submit that all that is done by this Clause, as indeed by any other Clause, is to try to carry out in a pettyfogging way some of the proposals of the Geddes Committee, in which even the hon. Gentleman himself, and those associated with him on the Treasury Bench, do not believe.

Mr. G. THORNE: I rise to ask one question. I do not understand the reading of the Clause in the light of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. The reading is
 such costs may include a fee in respect of the services of any officer.
Why are those words there if they have already the authority, and if they have not already the authority—

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: What I said was that, where there was power to charge a fee, and if no fee was fixed, it would he limited to five guineas. The point was this: we could only make that charge in respect of an inquiry, the costs of which are made payable by the local authority.

Mr. THORNE: The point I desire to put is this. Under this Clause the Department is authorised to make a charge in circumstances under which it cannot make a charge at present. If that be so, you are adding the burden to the local authority, which is inconsistent with the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not know to what the hon. Member is referring. I never made that statement.

Mr. J. JONES: This Clause gives an opportunity to the Government Department of inflicting themselves on the community locally, and fixes the charge which can be made in the matter of an inquiry which may be held into the administration of the local authority. We in the East End of London have been victims of this system for a very long time. If you want to inquire into our methods of conducting our business, you ought to pay the expense. We know what has happened. We have local rate-payers associations which meet together for the purpose of deciding that the government of the district is not good enough, and they want an alteration. They apply to the Minister of Health, or to the Local Government Board, or to whichever Board may be in existence, to hold an inquiry. We venture to suggest, so far as we are concerned in the East End of London, that the people who want an inquiry ought to pay for it, and if there are any fees to be paid they ought to be paid by those people who demand the inquiry, and not by the local authority which is the subject of the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that they are going to increase the fees to these people who are coming along to inquire, from three to five guineas. The cost of living is not going down, but the cost of briefing is going up. We have had some of these inquiries in West Ham, the district to which I belong.
The consequence of those inquiries has been that the rates have gone up, and we have had to pay thousands of pounds for legal gentlemen who have come along, not at our request.
Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that, when an inquiry is held, that inquiry is going to be conducted at the expense of the local authority? Are we to understand that we are going to be the victims of any person who likes to claim an inquiry? Is that the position? Because we protest most emphatically against inquiries being conducted without our consent. If an inquiry is going to be made by the Government Department, then somebody else than ourselves will have to be responsible for the expense. You have no right to ask us to be responsible for the legal expenses which attach to such an inquiry. Yet, according to this proposition, we are going to be held responsible for those legal expenses. A gentleman comes down. He comes to Stratford Market Station. Although the Town Hall is only two minutes' walk away, he charges a guinea for a taxicab. Three guineas a day is his legal allowance, and he charges five guineas. Yet the men and women who sit upon the local authority get nothing for their work. They spend days and weeks looking after the interests of the public. A State official comes down from Whitehall, and he charges us five guineas a day by legal enactment. It is not good enough. We are fed up with it. We ask you to realise that, instead of increasing the charges in accordance with the cost-of-living arrangements, the lawyers' fees ought to come down as well as the labourers' wages, and instead of giving the lawyers more money you should give them less. I know what they got in the days gone by. They got more than they were entitled to. There are a lot of them sitting there who got more than they ought to have got. We ask you not to place further burdens upon us. In 'e 1e district that I represent we are to-day paying 26s. 1d. in the pound. We are paying out £9,000 a week owing to the gap that you have made in the unemployment benefit. Now you are asking us to pay for a gentleman who comes down in a taxicab from Whitehall, or takes a taxicab from Stratford Market Station, another two guineas a day. We are not having it. The time will come when we
will protest most emphatically against it. Therefore we hope that this Clause will not be carried.

Mr. MARCH: I want to enter my protest in this matter, as I did in Committee. I tried to get the right hon. Gentleman to accept three guineas instead of five. It seems to me that it is the thin end of the wedge in getting the five guineas inserted in all the Acts of Parliament. So far as we can learn from the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill, there are a number of Acts of Parliament which have been passed at different times, in which the sum is three guineas. This seems to me to be the beginning of getting it made five guineas. Later on it will give an opportunity for some other officer of another Department to come along and say, "As you have already passed a Clause in an Act making it five guineas, we want to get it uniform, and to have it five guineas all round "—a very nice way of doing it.
I also want to enter my protest with regard to inquiries. I think, if the Government desire an inquiry, they should bear the expense, and, if another person requires an inquiry, he should contribute something towards the expense. It may be in the memory of some Members of the House what transpired during the last Government. There were two hon. Members who were supposed to represent the Borough of Poplar, but they misrepresented it, and they caused a great furore in this House with regard to the way in which the council and the guardians were conducting their business. Through the Association of Ratepayers they forced an inquiry upon our board of guardians, which lasted a very great number of days. That inquiry was not held by the consent or the wish of the guardians, or of the borough council, or of the people of the borough, but it was forced upon them. After they held the inquiry they found out nothing. They have not advised us to do anything in connection with the matter. The consequence was that we got a forced inquiry upon us. If this Bill becomes an Act, we stand to have an expense of five guineas a day thrust upon us unnecessarily and unwarrantably. If there is any kicking to be done we can do it at Poplar, and we shall certainly kick against an expense being imposed upon us without our desire or
wish. I certainly think the Government are ill-advised in coming forward with a Clause of this kind. As a matter of fact, I am entirely against the Bill, There is another Clause in the Bill with which I will deal, if I have an opportunity, later on; but I certainly am opposed to this Clause, and I hope the Government will see their way clear to withdraw it.

Mr. ADAMS: Did the right hon. Gentleman state that this Clause would enable them to make a charge to local authorities which they were not able to make at the present time?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Certainly. It would make a uniform fee of five guineas. If there is no fee, it will enable them to charge five guineas. If the fee is three guineas it will enable them to charge five guineas. If they are enabled to charge any more it would limit the charge to five guineas.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. ADAMS: This Clause indicates the disability in which this House is placed by having to deal with a number of diverse problems in an omnibus Bill. Certain Members of the House are very anxious that some sections of it should pass, while, at the same time, they feel the great disability which other sections will impose upon matters in which they are directly interested. It does seem unlikely that any Members of local authorities should be prepared at this time of day to submit to a Clause of this character, when the tendency of the times is towards a diminution of the burdens upon local authorities. The Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils Association, and every municipal association, large and great, is continually pressing upon the Central Authority the necessity for relieving local burdens, and in that way enabling the local taxation to be relieved. This Clause is a direct negation of that policy. It is a violation of the spirit in which Governments in recent years have met the local authorities. In every appeal which has been made, if there has been any reasonableness or substance in it, it has been met by the central authority assisting to share the burden with the local authorities. I understood, from careful inquiries as to what took place in Committee, that the
right hon. Gentleman indicated that this would not add to the burdens of local authorities. Instead of that he has pointed out to us now something quite the contrary, that it is about to do so. If the object of this Measure was to raise funds for the central authority or, which is the same thing, to provide economies in a Measure of this kind, it might have been possible for the Government to give to local authorities much greater economies than they enjoy at the present time. Why should not there have been introduced a Clause, or a Bill entitled, "The Local Authorities Enabling Bill," which would permit local authorities to engage in necessary reforms without the intervention of the central authority subject to the measure, Bill, or proposals lying for a certain time unchallenged on the Table of this House? In that way we would have secured large economy and local authorities would be relieved of a great deal of outside and unnecessary pressure under which their schemes are frequently diverted into channels to which they themselves are strongly opposed, but on which, for the sake of compromise with the central authority, they yield from that which the majority of their ratepayers desire.
With regard to this £5 5s., it is a retrograde departure. There are very few local authorities in this kingdom which will pay their members as much as the City of Newcastle, £2 a day. We have people in a large way of business who are satisfied that all their expenditure is fully met by £2 2s. a day, so that if £3 3s. were charged that certainly ought abundantly to suffice. I hope members of local authorities will vote against this Bill, and that there will be an Amendment for the rejection of the entire Measure unless the right hon. Gentleman meets us in that respect. Here we are proceeding in a direction which certainly the central authority will be attempting to travel by adding greater and greater burdens of expenditure upon the already overburdened local authorities. It is very significant that the policy pursued almost throughout this Measure is in a direction quite contrary to that which the Government is understood to be following with regard to the great local authorities of this kingdom. The work they are performing voluntarily often at very great
expense to themselves—I allude to membership of the same—ought to be encouraged and not discouraged, local authorities ought to be relieved and not penalised as they are in this case.

Question put, "That the words of the Clause to the word "five" [" five guineas a day "] stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 136.

Division No. 64.]
AYES.
[8.7 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Paget, T. G.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Furness, G. J.
Pease, William Edwin


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Penny, Frederick George


Archer-Shee, Lieut. Colonel martin
Ganzoni, Sir John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Pielou, D. P.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Goff, Sir R. Park
Privett, F. J.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Barnott, Major Richard W.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Becker, Harry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Remer, J. R.


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rentoul, G. S.


Berry, Sir George
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Halstead, Major D.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Blundell, F. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Samuel (Hertford, Watford)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harrison, F. C.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Brass, Captain W.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hawke, John Anthony
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Roundell, Colonel H. F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Bruford, R.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buckley, Lieut. Colonel A.
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Ht. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Burn. Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Sandon, Lord


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Shepperson, E. W.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Shipwright, Captain D.


Button, H. S.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Singleton, J. E.


Cassels, J. D.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hume, G. H.
Sparkes, H. W.


Churchman. Sir Arthur
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Stanley, Lord


Clarry, Reginald George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Clayton, G. C.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Cobb. Sir Cyrlt
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frater


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Sugden, Sir Wilfred H.


Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sykes, Major-Gen.Sir Frederick H.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lamb, J. Q.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Cope, Major William
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cory. Sir J. H. (Cardiff. South)
Lorlmer, H. D.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Maddocks, Henry
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wallace, Captain E.


Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Manville, Edward
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Wells, S. R.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Dawson, Sir Philip
Milne, J. S. Ward law
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Morning, Captain Algernon H.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Morris, Harold
Whitla, Sir William


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Winterton, Earl


Ednam, Viscount
Morrison-Bell, Major A.C.(Honiton)
Wise, Frederick


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Murchison, C. K.
Wolmer, Viscount


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wood. Sir H. K. (Woolwich, Wast)


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Foreman, Sir Henry
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)



Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Frasor, Major Sir Keith
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


NOES.


Adams, D.
Barnes, A.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Brotherton, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Batey, Joseph
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Ammon, Charles George
Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Buckle, J.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bowdler, w. A.
Burnie, Major J. (Bootie)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Irving, Dan
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Cairns, John
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Royce, William Staple ton


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Saklatvala, S.


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Salter, Dr. A.


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Sexton, James


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newingtan)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Darbishire, C. W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kenyon, Barnet
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Duncan, C.
Lansbury, George
Simpson, J. Hope


Dunnico, H.
Lawson, John James
Sinclair, Sir A.


Ede, James Chuter
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lee, F.
Smell, Harry


Edmonds, G.
Lees-Smith, H. S. (Keighley)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Linfield, F. C.
Stephen, Campbell


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Lowth, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Foot, Isaac
Lunn, William
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Gilbert, James Daniel
Mac Donald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Gosling, Harry
McLaren, Andrew
Sullivan, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
March, S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Greenall, T.
Maxton, James
Tillett, Benjamin


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Groves, T.
Millar, J. D.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Grundy, T. W.
Morel, E. D.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Weir, L. M.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Muir, John W.
Welsh, J. C.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Hardie, George D.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Harris, Percy A.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Hartshorn, Vernon
Newbold, J. T. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Herriotts, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hill, A.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Hillary, A. E.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hinds, John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Trevelyan Thomson and Mr. Fairbairn.


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Riley, Ben



Hogge, James Myles
Ritson, J.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "a day" [" five guineas a day "], and to insert instead thereof the words
 for every day upon which the inquiry is conducted.
I understand the Clause as it stands does cover inquiries held under the Housing Acts, and any subsequent inquiries under any future Act that may be passed. The purport of the Amendment is that the charge of £5 5s. 0d. for which the Clause provides shall be limited to the number of days on which the inquiry is actually held. I submit that is a very reasonable proposition. One cannot tell how long Government Departments may take in journeying to and from, or what amount of time they my spend necessarily or unnecessarily in the locality making inquiries. As the object of the Bill is economy I submit that it is very desirable to reduce the costs which those who are holding the inquiry can get to as narrow limits as possible. I gave an illustration of the inquiries held last year at Kingston on Hull into housing; an inquiry lasted one day, and the fee charged the local authority amounted to over £30 in
each case. I presume that if a bill of costs had been asked for, there would have been so many days spent making inquiries on the spot before the inquiry was held, and so many more days after the inquiry was held. That is expense over which the local authority has no check whatever. In the interests of economy and of the local authority the local authority should pay only for those services which are obviously rendered while the inquiry is being held.

Mr. FAIRBAIRN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: Whether the Amendment be considered reasonable or unreasonable, there is no doubt that it would introduce a complete innovation into the existing practice as regards charging for these inquiries, because in the past it has been the practice to include in the days for which a fee may be charged all the days which are occupied by the person who conducts the inquiry, not merely in sitting at the inquiry but in travelling to and fro and in preparing his report. If the object of the Clause is to provide that the cost
of the inquiry should be recovered, it is absolutely necessary that the Clause should read as it does, and not as suggested by the hon. Member. I could not accept an Amendment which introduced such a complete innovation.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to move to leave out the, word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
I desire to refer to one or two matters which are more prosaic than many of the subjects discussed earlier in the Debate, but are none the less important. We have been discussing the desirability of obtaining for the general public facilities for acquiring information and obtaining culture and learning, and all those desirable things. I do not quarrel with the Government for having withdrawn a Clause which was regarded by almost everyone in this House, and by the public, as most objectionable. But if public opinion could be used to induce the Government to withdraw a Clause such as that to which I have just referred, then public opinion might also be appealed to for the withdrawal of a Bill which, generally speaking, is just as objectionable as the Clause which has been withdrawn. The primary purpose for which this Bill was introduced was to raise more revenue and effect certain economy. So far as revenue will be raised it will be at the expense of efficiency, and I question very much whether revenue will be raised to any considerable extent.
If it be, as it is, desirable to provide facilities for culture, it is equally desirable to protect the lives of men and women. I submit that the effect of certain proposals embodied in this Bill will be to increase the risks undertaken by this class of men, whose risks to-day are equal to if not greater than those undertaken by any other class in the community—I refer to the men of the mercantile marine—and it will also increase the risks undertaken by those who utilise vessels for travelling purposes. On the Second Reading speeches were made by hon. Gentlemen opposite who are associated with the shipping industry, in the course of which assurances were given that
nothing would be done to interfere with the efficiency of the mercantile marine, or to bring about a less rigid inspection of merchant vessels than has hitherto been in operation. I am not disposed to quarrel with hon. Gentlemen who make statements of that kind, but I do know that, as a matter of practice, when you impose additional burdens on an industry, those who are associated with the industry will seek to devise ways and means of escaping from such burdens, and the natural and inevitable outcome of the imposition of additional fees on the shipping industry will be to reduce efficiency and cause a less rigid inspection of the mercantile marine.
The right hon. Gentleman responsible for this Bill has an exceedingly limited knowledge of the shipping industry. That is not surprising, because Govern-merits frequently are composed of gentlemen whose knowledge of particular industries is not commensurate with the importance of the Departments which they supervise. As the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of shipping is so limited, one can hardly expect him to consider, as one would desire, the importance of the proposals contained in this Bill. He has been in the hands of the shipping industry. [Laughter.] I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is so amused by observations from this side, but if he had to suffer the conditions which men in the mercantile marine have to suffer, men of whose lives, privileges and liberties his Department is the custodian, he would laugh at the other side of his face.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Member is not entitled to say that. What I was laughing at was the suggestion that I was in the hands of the shipowners, which I though was a very crude remark. Seeing that I am imposing a charge of £120,000 on them, I should have thought that they were in my hands.

Mr. SHINWELL: The right hon. Gentleman is much too ingenuous in his argument. Originally he intended to impose comparatively high burdens on the shipping industry. Why did he change his original proposals? He intended to inflict on the shipping industry impositions which they considered that they were hardly able to bear. But he withdrew them. Why? No justifiable explanations have ever been
given to the House, and in the absence of reasonable explanations we are justified in assuming that the shipowners, in accepting the modified proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, must have known what they were doing. All along I have contended that the shipowners have obtained a quid pro quo. There has been a compromise, undoubtedly, and a compromise means that one side or the other gives way. Of course, the Government have given way. They give way much more readily to the shipowning fraternity than they do to the sea-going fraternity. That is the ground of complaint which will be used not only on this occasion but on any other. Not only with regard to the proposals which affect the Mercantile Marine, but with regard to every single Clause in this Bill, we are entitled to submit as our ground of complaint that the whole of the proposals are pettifogging in character.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: No, no!

Mr. SHINWELL: I hope the hon. Member will exercise a little restraint on the subject.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I shall be happy to speak on the subject when the hon. Member has finished.

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Member says that he will be happy to speak. I presume from his impatience that he will be unhappy. I submit that every one of the proposals of the Bill is pettifogging in character. After consultation with certain selected interests, it is proposed to raise a few thousand pounds out of the Mercantile Marine. It is proposed to raise a sum of £600 from fees to be imposed in connection with burials.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): Fees from what?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am not sure whether the Noble Lord has studied the Bill. I would direct his attention to Clause 7, Sub-section (1) of which reads as follows:

Where a Secretary of State issues a licence under Section twenty-five of the Burial Act, 1857, for the removal of any body, or the remains of any body, which has been interred in any place of burial, there shall be payable in respect of the licence such fee, not exceeding two pounds, as the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, may prescribe.
According to the estimate it is intended to raise £600 per annum in that way. It has also been urged that a certain suns will be raised, although no definite figure is mentioned, by imposing fees on local authorities in connection with inquiries. We were told on the Second Reading that the Geddes Committee had laid it down that certain fees must be charged in order to raise additional revenue. If this be the outcome of the Geddes Committee proposals, the Government ought to be ashamed of itself in submitting it. Is this what is called economy? Is this a concession to the Anti-waste party? If the right hon. Gentleman and his associates want to effect economy in State administration they will receive much valuable and helpful advice from the Labour benches. I cannot enter into matters of that kind now, but every Member of this House knows that economies can be effected even in the right hon. Gentleman's own Department. It is not the way to effect economy to interfere with the safety of the men in the Mercantile Marine and with the safety of passengers using merchant ships. It is false economy and it ought not to be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be a bit doubtful whether the imposition of further fees on the shipping industry will bring about further risks. He said in Committee that he thought I was arguing on behalf of the shipowners. Need I assure him and this House that I hold no brief for the shipowners? I contend that the services which are intended to prefect life and limb, and which relate to the Mercantile Marine, ought to be considered by the State in precisely the same way as the inspection of mines, of railways, and of all those things with which the State is concerned.

If this Bill passes, it is the thin edge of the wedge, and no doubt in due course the right hon. Gentleman will submit a Bill asking the railway companies to pay for the inspection of railways and to pay for Board of Trade inquiries; he will ask the agricultural interest to pay for the inspection under the Milk and Dairies Act; and he will ask the mining industry to bear the charges which are now borne by the State for the inspection of mines. It. a pernicious principle. This Bill ought never to have been introduced. It is of no value as a means
of raising revenue. If all that the Government can do is to introduce a Bill of this character, and then to withdraw important Clauses which they said would have enabled them to raise large amounts of money—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was introduced to the Committee for the purpose of proving how much money could be raised if certain Clauses were obtained—the House ought to reject the Bill. The Government is endeavouring to meet its commitments and promises with regard to economy. They are not meeting their commitments or promises by means of this Bill, but are merely playing with the question.

I hope that the House will tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill in its emasculated form, after Clause 9 has been withdrawn, cannot pass. It is pernicious in principle, it undermines the safety of the general public and of men engaged in important national service. It will be remembered against the right hon. Gentleman in days to come by the men of the mercantile marine, for every accident which takes place on board ship, for every reported case of impure water and impure foodstuffs due to the lack of rigid inspection, for every disaster which takes place and which affects the safety of those who travel on passenger ships, due to the fees imposed in connection with wireless telegraphy—a most obnoxious proposal. We all know the attitude of the shipowners on that question. They want to withdraw the men employed on board ship for the purpose of keeping in touch with wireless telegraphy operations. These things will be remembered against the Tight hon. Gentleman and the Government in days to come when accidents of the kind which I have indicated take place and disasters accrue. Because the Bill is of no value as a means of raising funds; because it does not effect any economy; because it imposes a burden on industry which should be borne by the State; because it does not meet with the views of the men engaged in the industry which is so much affected by it, I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. J. JONES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill lashed himself into a totally unnecessary state of excitement and made a number of charges against my right hon. Friend the
President of the Board of Trade which I think he will regret when he comes to read the latter part of his speech in cold print. The hon. Member has not hesitated to insinuate, not only that the Bill is a corrupt bargain between the Government and the shipowners, but also that it is going to endanger the lives of the men of our merchant service. He knows, or he ought to know, perfectly well that, such a charge is absolutely baseless.

Mr. SHINWELL: Nothing of the kind.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member argues that increased fees are going to increase the dangers to the Mercantile Marine. He might as well argue that increased wages would also increase the dangers to the Mercantile Marine. The point is perfectly absurd and the explanation of the Bill, as my right hon. Friend gave it on the Second Reading, is very simple. The Geddes Committee which was appointed by the late Government to inquire into every department of national expenditure, gave as its opinion that, among many things necessary, it was high time the fees which various Government Departments were allowed to charge for various services rendered and the various costs to which they were subject in administering Acts of Parliament, should be brought up to date so as to bear some relation to present-day charges. That is the beginning and end of the reasons for this Bill. It is an exceedingly simple and almost trivial matter. The hon. Member spoke about the thin end of the wedge. The thin edge of this wedge was introduced by Mr. Gladstone and Sir Robert Peel, and even by their predecessors. Most of the fees to which the Board of Trade or the Government were entitled were on the Statute Book and all we are doing is bringing them up to date, as I say, and into some relation with the present costs of administration. Finally, the insinuation of the hon. Member that there has been any sort of agreement with the shipowners or with any other parties in regard to this Bill, is totally and utterly devoid of foundation.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask the Noble Lord if it is not the case that, after the original proposals had been submitted, a consultation took place with the ship-owning industry and these proposals were considerably modified? On what ground did that modification take place?

Viscount WOLMER: I will explain to the hon. Member if he gives me a chance. As my right hon. Friend explained on the Second Reading of the Bill, it was first drafted to carry out in their entirety the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. In the drafting of the Bill we did what the late Government did not do in regard to the Economy Bill; we put the individual charges dealt with by the Geddes Committee into the Schedule to the Bill, so that it became apparent at once to the Department and to the industry exactly the amount of money the recommendations involved. We then put them before the representatives of the shipowners, and said to them: "This is what carrying out the recommendations of the Geddes Committee means." The shipowners appealed to toy right hon. Friend and said: "Do you realise the enormous burden this will place on the shipping industry at this very critical juncture "My right hon. Friend was much impressed by that argument, and, after consultation with the Cabinet, he was able to modify the proposals of the Bill so that they were much less drastic than the proposals of the Geddes Committee. That was fully explained by my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading, and he also denied that there was any sort of bargain with the shipowners or with anyone else on the matter. I hope the House will not desire me to go further into the details of the Bill, which have already been fully discussed both on the Floor of the House and in Committee upstairs.

Mr. A. SHAW: I only intervene to repeat what I said previously, that the idea that there is in this Bill any arrangement by way of a bargain between the Government and the shipowners, is without the slightest shred of foundation. It is a pure figment of the brilliant imagination of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell). From beginning to end there has been no transaction of that, kind. I have told the House exactly how the matter stood, and it is extremely simple. We were faced with a Bill which sought to impose a charge which would have amounted to about £.420,000 per annum. We employed, with a certain measure of success, the arguments so very well put forward by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. We pointed out that if the Government were to proceed logically
they would have to charge railways and mines with all the costs of supervision, that the same thing would apply to agriculture, and that they would have to charge the factories with all the costs of the machinery for factory inspection. Of course, we intimated to the Government that if this course were persisted in we should have to fight the Bill by all the means in our power. I gather that we should have had the powerful assistance of my hon. Friend in doing it.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am giving it all the time. Why have you not accepted it?

Mr. SHAW: The Government said, "We will not give way to your arguments," but after a while they said, "We have reconsidered the matter, we have put it before the entire Government, and we have come to the conclusion that there is great force in what you say, but we must carry out the recommendations of the Geddes Committee as far as we can, and we will, therefore, agree that your arguments are so forcible that we shall impose only half the cost of carrying on these services instead of the whole cost." So that to that extent the arguments which we used and, if I may say so with respect, the strenuous opposition which we offered were successful, but from the beginning to the end there was nothing else in it than that. Something was said on the last occasion about an Economy Committee. That Committee was entirely independent of whether we supported or opposed the Bill, and had we come here and opposed the Bill tooth and nail, with the assistance of the hon. Member, not a scrap of difference would have been made to the suggestion of the Board of Trade that there should be this Committee to investigate these services. The only other point I wish to make is this, that it seems to have escaped the notice of certain hon. Members that there is no chance whatever of these safeguards which protect life and the ship itself being swept away, because they are all statutory safeguards, laid down in Acts which have passed this House, and cannot be interfered with unless by the House itself.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the hon. Member explain, since he has made a statement that has not been proved, whether it is not the case that Regulations are provided by the Board of
Trade with regard to the inspection of foodstuffs and life-saving appliances, which are in the hands of the Board of Trade and are not statutory Regulations which come before this House?

Mr. SHAW: I say without the least hesitation that I had no knowledge whatever of the provisions with regard to the inspection of food until I came to this House, but I would certainly never be a party to whittling down the provisions in that regard, and I would remind the hon. Member of what happened in regard to the last Bill. So far from those who are interested in the shipping industry wishing to do away with the inspection

dealt with in that Bill, they with one voice wished to retain it. The cost is very small, and it is a protection not only to the men, but to the shipowners. With regard to the other matter, we knew nothing whatever about it, and these statutory safeguards, so far as they affect boats and so on, have recently received the attention of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, of which an hon. Member whom I now see on the Labour Benches is a member.

Question put, "That the word now ' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 118.

Division No. 65.]
AYES.
[8.51 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynie
Edmonds, G.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maddocks, Henry


Apsley, Lord
Ednam, Viscount
Manville, Edward


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Margesson, H. D. R.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Fade, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Morris, Harold


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Murchison, C, K


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Foreman, Sir Henry
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Barrie Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Becker, Harry
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Furness. G. J.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Berry, Sir George
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Betterton, Henry B.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Blades. Sir George Rowland
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Blundell, F. N.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Paget, T, G.


Bowdler, W. A.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Pease, William Edwin


Brass, Captain w.
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Penny, Frederick George


.Grown, Major D. C. (Hoxham)
Greene, Lt.-Col Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Pielou, D. P.


Bruford, R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Privett, F. J.


Bruton. Sir James
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Buckingham, Sir H.
Halstead, Major D.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk Peel


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Aitrincham)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Harrison, F. C.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Burney. Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Harvey, Major S. E.
Renter, J. R.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hawke, John Anthony
Rentoul, G. S.


Button, H. S.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Cassels, J. D.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hinds, John
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Clayton, G. C.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Russell, William (Bolton)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hopkins, John W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Cope, Major William
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Sandon, Lord


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnuck)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hume, G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Shipwright, Captain D.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Simpson-Hinchlifle, W. A.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Singleton, J. E.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Sparkes, H. W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lord


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lorimer, H. D.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Edge, Captain Sir William
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Sturrock, J. Leng
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wolmer, Viscount


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wallace, Captain E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Sugden, Sir Wilfred H.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Sykes, Major-Gen.Sir Frederick H.
Wells, S. R.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Yerburgh, R. O. T.


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)



Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Whitla, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Winterton, Earl
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wise, Frederick



NOES.


Adams, D.
Hardie, George D,
Potts, John S.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Vernon
Riley, Ben


Ammon, Charles George
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, C. R.
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Royce, William Stapleton


Barnes, A.
Herriotts, J.
Saklatvala, S.


Batey. Joseph
Hill, A.
Salter, Dr. A.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hillary, A. E.
Sexton, James


Brotherton, J.
Hogge, James Myles
Shinwell, Emanuel


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Irving, Dan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buckle, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Burnie, Major J. (Bootie)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Simpson, J. Hope


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Cairns, John
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Cape. Thomas
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Kenyon, Barnet
Sullivan, J.


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Lansbury, George
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Darbishire, C. W.
Leach, W.
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dudgeon, Major C, R.
Lee, F.
Tillett, Benjamin


Duncan, C.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Warne, G. H.


Ede, James Chuter
Mac Donald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Sidney


Fairbairn, R, R.
Maxton, James
Weir, L. M.


Foot, Isaac
Middleton, G.
Welsh, J. C.


Gosling, Harry
Millar, J. D.
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Muir, John W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.



Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Lunn.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE BILL. [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
9.0 P.M.
The Bill to which we are asking the House to give a Second Reading this evening is one of very great interest to a large number of people. Industrial assurance has attained really an amazing popularity, of which some hon. Members may be aware, but which, I admit, was a great surprise to myself. In 1921, it was calculated that a sum of no less than £37,000,000 was collected in premiums,
which, as hon. Members are aware, are very small—at any rate, very small regarded as weekly or monthly instalments. It was calculated that between 60,000,000 and 70,000,000 separate policies were in existence, of which 7,000,000 were new policies in that particular year. Most hon. Members, perhaps, will know what industrial assurance is, but, perhaps, I may be allowed to give what is a rough definition that will serve. It is assurance of comparatively small sums—something like £10 or £12 upon somebody's life—in return for premiums which are collected in small instalments either weekly or, perhaps, monthly, the average amount of which has been calculated to be about 2½d. a week. The collection is made by agents, as they are called, although, I am afarid, the term is, from many points of view, a misnomer. It is made by agents who are said to
number about 70,000 persons, and they are paid by a commission upon the amount of their collections week by week, or month by month, and particularly upon what is called the new business which they acquire. The person who takes out the policy is supposed— although, I am afraid, it is only supposed —to have in many cases insurable interest in the person upon whose life the policy is taken out, and, generally speaking, the money is required to pay for the funeral expenses of the life concerned. Two separate classes of organisation have been carrying on this kind of business. One class is that of the industrial assurance companies; of which the Prudential and the Refuge are very well known illustrations, who are incorporated under the Companies Acts, who have a share capital of limited liability, and, therefore, come under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade. The other class of organisation is that of the collecting societies, who are registered under the Friendly Societies Act, and, therefore, are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. The Royal Liver and the Liverpool Victoria are two illustrations of that class. The proportion of the business done by those two classes of organisation is roughly one-fifth to four-fifths, four-fifths being done by the companies and one-fifth by the collecting societies. The business has grown to the present extent practically in the last 25 years. In 1896, when the Friendly Societies Act was passed, the business was comparatively small; to-day it is of the enormous extent which I have indicated.
Unhappily, side by side with a great deal of honest business, a number Of abuses have grown up, and it was found necessary, three years ago, to make some investigation into these abuses. I do not wish to detain hon. Members with any elaborate description of those abuses, or to dilate upon them more than is necessary for my present purpose, which is to explain the scope of this Bill; but, generally speaking, the criticism which was directed against the system was that the expenses were much too high in proportion to the benefits secured for the persons interested in the policies, and that the system, under which lapsed policies had no value—that is to say, no cash surrender value paid upon them, or no
fully-paid policy given in lieu of them for the amounts subscribed—deprived the persons, who were almost invariably persons of very small means, of any benefit in return for the premiums which they paid. As hon. Members will realise, the smallness of the premiums has exercised a very seductive effect upon these people, and many are induced to take out policies which they have no reasonable prospect of continuing.
It will be seen that a very large sum has been lost annually by persons who can ill afford it. I will tell hon. Members what will be well known to any who are interested in this question, that something like 44 per cent. of the premiums paid by these poor people goes, or has gone in the past, in paying commissions to agents, or expenses of the societies, or dividends in the case of the companies; or, to put it in another way, only 6¾d. out of every is paid in premiums is returned to the persons subscribing. The rest goes in expenses, commissions, and dividends. These facts were elicited, if they were not already known, by the Departmental Committee over which Lord Parmoor presided. In the course of that investigation other abuses came into prominence, including the unsound financial condition of some of these concerns and the ephemeral character of others. That is to say, it was so easy in some eases for persons to organise a society, to establish what appeared to be a. good business, and then disappear, leaving nothing behind them in the possession of their victims but a very unsavoury memory.
In February, 1920, Lord Parmoor's Committee issued a unanimous Report. This Departmental Committee had on it representatives of every party in this House, as well as the assistance of persons skilled in the business. They reported that there was an urgent need for many reforms and increased control, and they advised that legislation should he introduced without delay. Unavoidable delay occurred, but in August, 1921, a Bill was introduced into another place, not with any real hope of securing a passage through both Houses, but in order that criticism might be directed to it with a view to improvement. This Bill which now comes before this House from another place is the result of that criticism and of further investigation. I am glad to be able to
tell the House that all the matters to which the Parmoor Report called attention are dealt with in this Measure. I am sure that will be a satisfaction to hon. Members who are interested in the welfare of these people. The societies and companies concerned recognise that this Bill effects a very necessary and overdue reform in the businesses in which they are interested. I hope when hon. Members read the Bill, and follow the Debate, they will be of the same opinion, and will give a Second Reading to the Bill and so facilitate its further progress.
Perhaps I might first of all deal with some of the Clauses containing the most important reforms in what is a somewhat complicated Bill. I will do my best, and hon. Members perhaps will forgive any deficiency in view of the disability of a cold under which I labour. There are 45 Clauses in this Bill. Sixteen of these are are-enactment of, or comparatively unimportant alterations of, the existing law which is contained in the Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1890. This Act will be wholly repealed by this Bill, if it becomes law, as well as Section 36 of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909. Sixteen Clauses of this Bill are substantially re-enactments or an adaptation of the existing law. The rest of the Bill contains the reforms to which I have referred. The first essential change is in the definition of the organisations which will come under the operation of the Bill. Hon. Members will find the definition in Clause 1 of the Bill. It will no longer be necessary, as hitherto, to consider whether the particular organisation or collecting society collects premiums at a greater distance than 10 miles from its principal place of business, or whether it assures sums below £20. In future hon. Members will see from Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 that
 For the purposes of this Act industrial insurance business means the business of effecting assurance upon human life, premiums in respect of which are received by means of collectors‥‥
There is a proviso immediately following that such business will not include assurances the premiums in respect of which are payable at intervals of two months or more, so that every form of the assurance of human life, with the proviso I have just quoted, and a few exceptions, which I need not specify, come under this Bill.
The second Clause effects the next substantial reform in bringing the companies under the control of one person, namely, the present Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. It is not only a convenient, but, in order to make the Bill effective, a very necessary reform that a gentleman of great experience, and one who sympathises with the friendly societies, should have them under his watchful and experienced eye. He will in future have a different title, which is not quite so cumbrous, or at any rate is possibly more accurate; instead of being called the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies he will be called the Industrial Assurance Commissioner. He will supervise the operations, not only of the collecting societies, but of the assurance companies. So much for the concerns which come under the Bill and so much for the officer who has the superintendence of their operations.
The next proposal to which I wish to call attention is one of very great importance. It deals with the conditions under which a collecting society may be formed. Hon. Members will find this proposal contained in Clause 7 of the Bill. At the present time it is possible for—I was going to say seven rogues, but I will say —one rogue and six dupes to form a society without depositing any money such as is required from an assurance company, and when they have collected a substantial amount in premiums to disappear. I think all hon. Members will agree that that is most unsatisfactory. Clause 7 says:
 (1) Every collecting society shall he under the like obligation to deposit and keep deposited the sum of £20.000 as an industrial assurance company, and Section 2 of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, as applied by this Act to industrial assurance companies shall apply accordingly.
They will thus be put on the same footing as the companies, and this will at any rate provide some guarantee of financial soundness, or suggest some hope of it. It follows as a necessary corollary of this proposal that the industrial business both of companies and societies shall be absolutely separate from what is called the ordinary business. Therefore the Bill requires as to both the collecting societies and the companies that they shall separate, where it is not already done in the past, their businesses or operations in the manner I have just stated, and further a company will he required where
it has already made a deposit on account of its operations to make a further deposit in respect of the industrial assurance business so as to satisfy the provisions of the Bill. We have now the company formed and we have the official recognition; now I come to the process which is intended to deal with the evil which I put in the forefront of my statement, namely, the matter of expenses and dividends and the benefits to be secured to the policy holders.
It is proposed to remedy this evil by the operation of two separate Clauses, or groups of Clauses, in the Bill. The first step is to secure that these companies and societies are controlled—that is not too strong a word—by means of a valuation by a skilled actuary on sound principles, and in Clause 17 it is provided that, in the case either of a society or of a company, a proper valuation is to be made upon stated principles. The Commissioner will have the power to reject the valuation if it does not appear to have been made upon sound principles, and to require a new valuation to be made, subject always to an appeal to the High Court; and a condition has been imposed that, if the valuation discloses a deficiency, steps may be taken to bring the company or society to an end. At present some of the valuations are worse than worthless. The fact is that there is no power, either on the part of the Registrar or of the Court, to take any action unless the shareholders or policy-holders have initiated proceedings by petition. It has been said that this provision will work very harshly in the ease of some societies or companies which are perfectly sound, but have not been in the habit of having this strict valuation. In order to give time for these concerns to put their house in order, the Commissioner will have power to postpone this requirement for five years, if he is satisfied that substantial measures are being taken to improve the financial condition of the society or company. The ample powers of inspection which are giver to the Commissioner by Clause 16 will enable him the more effectually to exercise the control which is intended to become operative under Clause 17. The second step, or rather the second half of the method, by which it is intended to reduce the lavish extravagance of expenditure upon commissions and expenses, is by requiring much more sub-
stantial benefits to be given to the policyholders. The proper benefits which are adequate to the premiums that they pay will, it is hoped, be secured to them by means of these proposals.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman a Question before he passes from Clause 17? He speaks of a valuation. Does he mean a valuation of the liabilities or a valuation of the assets; and, if a valuation of the assets, since they are often unquotable assets, may I ask how that is to be arrived at?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend must not cross-examine me too closely as to the financial details of the valuation, because I am not going to profess a knowledge which I do not really possess. He asks me whether the valuation is a valuation of the assets or of the liabilities. I think he will remember that I used the expression "deficiency," and, obviously, in order to arrive at a deficiency both the assets and the liabilities must be valued. The other matters are more or less technical matters, which I am not competent to discuss, but if there is any question upon the actual provisions of the Bill I will try to explain it. I think hon. Members will probably agree with me that it is very necessary to secure that companies and societies shall not benefit by the issue of what are generally known as illegal policies. This is dealt, with in Clause 5 of the Bill, and it is made an offence to issue illegal policies. If, in future, a company does issue an illegal policy—that is to say, a policy to a person who has not an insurable interest in the life assured—the company will be required, not only to pay a fine under Clause 38 of the Bill, but also to return the premiums to the person who carried out the policy. It has been too much the, practice for agents to induce persons who may not have an insurable interest to take out policies, and then, when the time comes for the payment of the benefit for which the assurance purported to be effected, to repudiate the policy on the ground that it is illegal. If we can strengthen this Clause in any way, though think it is as strong as it can be made, we shall be glad to do so. What the Government desire is to make that class of policy impossible and unremunerative to the companies. The exploitation of
poor persons by issuing illegal policies is by no means the whole of the story. I have already referred to lapsed policies, but hon. Members may not be aware of the extent of these lapsed policies, and I, therefore, take leave to read two or three sentences from paragraph 18 of Lord Parmoor's Report. In the case of one society, it was found that, during the 10 years from 1909 to 1918, there were, in round figures 9,300,000 policies issued, while of these 6,400,000 lapsed.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: That was a company.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That was a company. In 10 of the offices (including most of the largest) nearly 5,000,000 policies lapsed in 1913, and of these nearly 4,000,000 were effected as recently as 1912 or 1913. The Report says:
 Taking all the offices together, it is probable that lapses of policies in the year of issue or the year following reach an annual total of 5,000,000‥‥So long as heavy procuration fees are allowed, it will always pay the agents to devote themselves to the ceaseless pursuit of new business among this class of the community, regardless of the value of the policies to the assured or of the probability that they will be kept up.
It is, perhaps, unnecessary for me to read these passages in order to assure hon. Members of the need for reform. It will now be provided, if this Bill becomes law, that what one or two companies give as a matter of grace shall become the right of the policy-holder, and that where a policy lapses by misfortune, poverty, or even neglect, the person assured shall be entitled to receive a fully-paid policy representing the actuarial value of his premiums, or, possibly, a cash surrender value, and although, again, time is given to the companies and societies to rearrange their finance so as to allow these increased benefits to be given, after five years these benefits will be compulsory. It is just conceivable that some hon. Members will think that five years is too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I appear rightly to have anticipated their views. The Government have not for a moment desired to extend the time within which the societies concerned should deprive policy-holders of the benefits to which they are entitled; but, while the anxiety of the Government has
been to make the period as short as possible consistently with the ultimate benefit of the great body of policy-holders, if the companies or societies were required suddenly to do something which was really beyond their means, it would result, ultimately, in greater loss to the great body of persons concerned. I hope that by the combined operation of the provisions for securing increased benefits to the policy-holders, and for the most rigid and careful valuation of the assets and liabilities of the companies and societies, they will be compelled to give value for the money that they receive to the ultimate benefit of the class of persons insured with them.
The rest of the Bill I can deal with much more shortly. Perhaps hon. Members will allow me briefly to refer to the Clauses in which the particular proposals are contained. Clauses 20 and 21 contain provisions which will insure the fullest possible information being given to policy holders. The policy holders will be entitled to certain information, and will be insured as far as possible against defective information as to the rights they are entitled to enjoy and the means of securing those rights. Clauses 24 and 25, and other Clauses in the Bill, provide against any alteration of the position of the policy holders by transfers from one society to another and the substitution of other policies. I do not want to take up time by describing in detail any of these provisions, but they are intended to be as protective as possible, in requiring that these humble people, many of them not very skilled in letters, shall receive all the information it is possible to give them to put them on their guard. In Clause 26 there is a provision that the payment of benefit, when it becomes due, shall be paid in full, subject, of course, to insolvency, which would prevent the payment of claims in full. So far as possible, however, in future policy holders will get their benefits without any deductions for liability on other policies. Clause 33 forbids the employment of those who. I confess, were new to me—special canvassers. For the benefit of any hon. Member who is as unaware of their existence as I was, I would say that they appear to be persons with a glib tongue and full of alluring promises, which they will never be called upon to fulfil, because they are not part of the regular staff of the companies and societies concerned. They are
independent gentlemen, who are called in by an agent who wishes to add to his book. When they have secured a great deal of good business, they disappear as swiftly as they came. If this Bill becomes law, it will be impossible for companies to employ these gentlemen to introduce business, but they will be open, no doubt, to seek employment at suitable by-elections.
That is the whole of this Bill, with two exceptions. Hon. Members will be, perhaps, surprised to find two Clauses which are a little outside its general scope. Clause 29 deals with what are called War Bond policies. This Clause, it is hoped, will be effective in securing the interests of persons who intended, during the War, to buy War Bonds by means of weekly or monthly premiums. It enables the Commissioner to make alterations or modifications in the conditions of these War Bond policies, so as to secure for the holders, as far as possible, all that they had hoped to obtain. During the War, when issue of National Loans were made, many persons, and particularly companies of this sort were exhorted to take up all the stock they could. Many of them made large subscriptions, and then, by making patriotic appeals to their customers, they induced certain people to take out War Bond policies to relieve the company. Many persons were under a misapprehension as to the terms of the policy they had taken out. No doubt there was substantial benefit awaiting those who took out the policies, but many were disappointed to find what the precise terms were. All this Clause does is to give power to the Commissioners to modify the conditions of these policies, and generally to review them, subject to appeal, so as to satisfy as far as possible the genuine expectations of the policy holders.
Clause 41 deals with bond investment business. This business is something like endowment policy business except that it is not secured on the life of any person. It has been found that the loan companies which carry on this class of business, and which used to be registered under the Friendly Societies Act, have, by bringing themselves under the operation of the Companies Act, and therefore under the Board of Trade, escaped the harassing attentions of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. They found them-
selves in a more serene atmosphere, and were able to avoid a very close inquiry into their operations. It is intended to restore them to the place where they ought to be, and to the watchful eye of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. It is hoped that the Bill will have a crippling effect upon their operations. This is outside the scope of the Bill, but it seems convenient to include it in the Measure, and I hope no hon. Member will think it inconvenient that it should be so included, because it is necessary to carry it into law.
I have tried to explain the main proposals of this Bill. Certainly, although we have endeavoured to make the Measure as perfect as possible, we by no means regard it as beyond criticism. There are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have great experience in these matters. I can only say, on behalf of those who have had charge of the Bill, that if hon. Members will be good enough to call our attention to any defects, either in form or substance, in the Bill, we shall welcome their assistance. The one desire we have is to make this enormous business one which will encourage, instead of hampering, the instinct of this nation for thrift, and will secure, without doing any detriment to the companies or the societies, the just reward of the, persons who exercise thrift.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I am sure there will be a general disposition in every quarter of the House to welcome legislation designed to remedy the abuses of industrial assurance to which the Solicitor-General has just referred. Certainly, I think on this side of the House, we shall not divide against the Second Reading, if we can receive assurances from the Government that some, as we think, well-founded objections to certain Clauses in the Bill will be sympathetically considered by the Solicitor-General during the Committee stage. But there are some respects in which this Bill is most unsatisfactory. Indeed, there are some respects in which we consider it highly dangerous, and despite the opinion of Lord Parmoor, quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Bill as it stands satisfied him that all the abuses to which the Parmoor Committee drew public opinion are met by it, there are still defects in industrial assurance which
the Bill does not remedy. For example, the Parmoor Report says:
 The case for high dividends appears to the Committee to rest upon somewhat slender foundations, and they think that in general the policyholders should receive a substantially greater part of the profits than is accorded to them at the present time. They express the hope that this indication of their opinion may be of service to the companies with whom the decision rests.
What a fine pious opinion, expressed probably with their tongues in their cheeks. The Report goes on:
 They are further of the opinion that the method of distributing the surplus among industrial policyholders should be reconsidered.
No such reconsideration, so far as I can gather, is compelled by the terms of this Bill. Under it the Prudential, the Pearl, and the Refuge and the other great companies may still continue to exact from their policy holders the extraordinary profits that they have been exacting in past-years, which would doubtless excite the admiration of all exploiters in this country. Take the Prudential Assurance Company, for example. I understand their total paid-up capital is £6,000. Their nominal capital is to-day £1,000,000. The difference between the; £6,000 and the £1,000,000 was made up by bonus shares given out of profits. Last year they paid away in profits to their shareholders no less than £625,000, equal to 62i per cent, on the £1,000,000. More than that, it was free of tax. Therefore the dividend was in reality 80 per cent. If you take their dividend not on the £1,000,000, but upon the capital actually subscribed, the dividend last year, after the revelations of the Pavmoor Committee, was 13,000 per cent.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Member explain that? I understand the capital of the Prudential Company is in £1 shares. If, as he says, on a million £1 shares £625,000 has been paid it is not 13,000, but 62½ per cent.

Mr. JOHNSTON: It is very simple. The nominal capital is £1,000,000, but the actual sum paid in was £6,000.

Mr. SAMUEL: The capital paid up is £1,000,000.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I think I said the difference between the £6,000 and the £1,000,000 is made up by bonus shares
which were given out of previous profits. Between 1909 and 1918 the shareholders actually got £5,230,000 in profits. Let us take the Pearl, another well-known industrial insurance office. It does more, of course, than industrial business, and so also do the Prudential, the Refuge and the other companies. The Pearl's usual dividend is 50 per cent. on its nominal capital. Last year certainly it was 50 per cent. tax free, but the majority of the ordinary shares have only been half called up, so that in reality now the majority of the ordinary shareholders in the Pearl Insurance Company are receiving 100 per cent. dividend per annum. [An HON. MEMBER: "Someone is prosperous! "] Someone is prosperous, but at whose expense? I am sure the House will be delighted to hear the hon. Member afterwards attempt to justify 13,000 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "We are finding them out."] Yes, and that is what they are angry about. The Refuge Company, another great exploiting office, in 1918 paid 27½ per cent. tax free, in 1919 20 per cent. tax free, and in 1920 23 per cent. tax free. I have not the later figures. But in addition to these dividends certain directors—and the directors and their families, I understand, hold the bulk of the shares, and it is referred to in the Parmoor Report—take £62,920 in fees and £4,000 for other remuneration. In other words, they take annually £70,000 in addition to the profit on their shares. Then there are other offices, such as the London and Manchester, which paid in 1918 50 per cent., in 1919 50 per cent., and in 1920 35 per cent. Then I come to another aspect of industrial assurance as run by the companies. I have here a copy of a paper called the "Financial Nows" for Monday, 19th March, which devoted about two-thirds of a column to describing the financial position of the City Life Assurance Company.

Mr. SAMUEL: We are dealing with that in this Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I cannot hear what the hon. Member says, and I do not think it would matter if I did. The "Financial News" says that the actuarial valuation as at 31st December, 1921—not 1922, remember—discloses the alarming fact that on the industrial branch alone, that is, the branch dealing with working-class policies for small sums, there is a
deficiency of £544,687. The "Financial News" goes on to say:
 The disclosures in the ordinary branch, where there is a deficiency, bad as they are, pale into insignificance beside those in the industrial branch, and, unfortunately, so far as the latter are concerned the interests of poor people are at stake.
It goes on to state that of weekly subscribers for pure endowment policies at the date of the valuation there were as many as 35,636 holders, the net liability in respect of the latter being £499,120. That is a year ago. The position is worse since then. Nothing in this Bill, as I understand it, prevents this company from going on for at least another five years before the Industrial Assurance Commissioner to be appointed under the Bill can step in and safeguard the position of the poor policy holders. That is how I read the Bill. One hon. Member, speaking a few nights ago, described the position of workmen's compensation assurance companies, showing that, with an income of £8,250,000, less than.£3,000,000 went in compensation, legal and medical expenses, £2,750,000 went in expenses of the companies and commissions, and two and a third millions every year went in profits to the shareholders.
Our chief objection to this Bill is that it does not really face the remedy. There is only one remedy, and that one remedy is public owner-ship of industrial assurance. Use your existing organisation outside to function for you, and own and control the business, and let all the profits which are earned go back wholly to the policy holders and not to the exploiting shareholders.

Mr. OWEN PARKER: Will the hon. Member tell us how many exploiting shareholders there are of the working class?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I would advise the hon. Member to spend a few pence in purchasing the Parmoor Committee's Report.

Mr. PARKER: I have already done that.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Then the hon. Member has not understood it. Having quoted the "Financial News" in regard to the City Life Assurance Company, I want to put a point to the Solicitor-General, and I hope he will be able to meet us in Committee. In this Bill he is giving the City Life Assurance Company directors and shareholders the right of appeal to the
Law Courts before he winds them up. They have the right to go to the Law Courts before their business is taken from them. They have the right to give their side of the case, and the Industrial Assurance Commissioner has not the right to close their doors until he has Proved his case in open Court. When we come to the case of the friendly societies, what happens? Let them be ever so sound financially, let them have under their present valuation 35s. to the £, and they can have their doors closed by the mere fiat of the Industrial Assurance Commissioner, without their having any appeal to the Law Courts. It is expressly stated in this Bill that the friendly societies are not to have an appeal to the Law Courts. A more extraordinary provision I have never seen in any Bill before Parliament than this, that exploiting shareholders are to have the right of appeal to the Law Courts, but friendly societies, operated not for profit, but for the mutual advantages of their members, are to have no right of appeal to the Law Courts, and to have their doors closed when the Industrial Commissioner so decides.
I would direct the attention of the House to Clause 44, which says that the Industrial Assurance Commissioner may direct in what mariner the assets of the friendly societies are to be divided or appropriated. He can dissolve them: he can shut their doors, and he can hand over their business to the Prudential, the Refuge, the Pearl or any other company, without protest, without right of appeal on behalf of the friendly societies. That is an un-British provision. I do not think it is right that any one man should have any of these powers. What will it mean immediately if these powers are exercised? I have here the actuary's report upon a little friendly assurance society in my own Division, the Stirling-shire Friendly Assurance Society. This Society has been in existence for 62 years. The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies regards it as a sound institution in every way. Its assets stand at 30s. in the £ after all these years, but it is possible, its assets being small, only £6,618, that it cannot raise the £20,000. It goes automatically out of existence. Who gets the business? The Prudential, the Pearl, or the Refuge. Under these circumstances, when these sort of things can go on, I declare that this Bill is a, company Measure.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This is a point of some importance, and I should not like it to go out as the hon. Member puts it. Practically the same appeal is given to a society as to a company.

Mr. JOHNSTON: indicated dissent.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member shakes his head. He will allow me to state that fact. Essentially the same right of appeal is given. I agree that the provision is not so clear to the layman's eyes as it ought to be, and I have no doubt that the provision can be made clear in the Bill, so that it is perfectly obvious to everybody that a society has the right of appeal.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I direct the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to Clause 16 (2), where it says:
 and in particular may in the case of a society award that the society be dissolved and its affairs wound up, and in the case of a company may present a petition to the Court for the winding-up of the company.
Is not that a justification for everything I have said? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman dispute it?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not want to argue the point again. I have stated what I conceive to be the position. If the hon. Member will refer to Clause 44 of the Bill, he will find there the interpretations. I cannot undertake to discuss the legal effect of every sentence in the Bill. I can only say, as the hon. Member asks me if I dispute it, that I do dispute it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I can only take the English language. In Clause 16 there is a definite statement that the Industrial Assurance Commissioner may dissolve a friendly society, but in the case of a company he may only appeal to the Law Courts for a winding-up order. I have read out the words, and the House can judge for itself what the meaning is of those words. I quite agree that, in regard to a valuation dispute, the right hon. Gentleman specifically gives both friendly societies and companies an equal right of appeal to the Law Courts, but it is only on a question of valuation. On the other questions he does not give that right of appeal. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, he does!"] I say he does not. Here is another Clause—Clause 17 (3):
 If in the case of a collecting society or industrial assurance, company a valuation,
whether made before or after the passing of this Act, discloses a deficiency, the Commissioner may, if after investigation he is satisfied that the society or company should cease to carry on industrial assurance business, award that the society be dissolved and its affairs wound up, or, in the case of a company, present a petition to the Court for the winding-up of the company.
Hon. Members may know more about the law than I do, but it seems to me that that is perfectly plain English, and it is put in there for a specific purpose. If, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us an assurance, as I understand he has given us an assurance, that in the Committee stage he will alter the language of the Bill to make it certain that the friendly societies get a right of appeal, then, if there is a necessity for altering the language of the Bill, he admits inferentially that the claim I have been making for the last five or 10 minutes is correct.
There is another point on which I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will be willing to meet us. It is this question of the £20,000 down. Twenty thousand to the Prudential, to the Pearl, or to the Refuge is nothing. It means nothing to them, but £20,000 down, in regard to some of these reputable and old-established offices—the balance sheets of half a dozen of which I have here—means putting them out of business. There is the Druids, for example; there is the Shepherds: there is the Odd-fellows, and so on. They are all reputable offices.
10.0 P.M.
I quite agree with the purpose which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in view. He wants to stop bogus offices from arising. He wants to impose a penalty which will prevent an office in one room from operating round the houses of the working class and swindling them on industrial assurance, and quite rightly so; but I suggest that, if he could find a form of words whereby he would make the deposit pro rata to the assets, the penalty would still be as effective on the small offices. Take the office I have mentioned, with £6,000 of assets. Make the deposit something substantial, but do not ask them for £20,000, which you know they cannot meet, which you know will drive them out of business, and which you know will drag them into the lap of the big offices, whose finances are, perhaps, not so sound as those of the small offices you are destroying.
There is another Clause on which I trust the hon. and learned Gentleman will be prepared to meet us. Again, it is a matter probably merely of drafting. It is the Clause dealing with the special canvassers—a parasitic type of rogue. Clause 33 says:
 A collecting society or industrial assurance company shall not, nor shall any person employed by such a society or company, employ any person not being a person in the regular employment of the society or company.
I submit that that phrase "regular employment," as it stands, means that spare-time employés would be barred. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman might find words which would prevent the immediate displacing of hundreds of thousands of men, mostly in small country villages, who are adding a little to their livelihood by week-end collections of premiums on behalf of an office.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us to-night an assurance that, when the Bill is going through Committee, he will endeavour to amend it, really in the way of strengthening it, and not so that the rogue shall escape, but so that the honest offices, the people who have nothing to hide, the people against whom his own officers have no complaint to make, shall riot be penalised or destroyed, then I am certain that we, on these benches, will be able to give this Bill a Second Reading and whole-hearted support. But we cannot sit silent on these benches and see the co-operative societies of insurance—because that is what the mutual societies are in essence; many of them are badly conducted, some of them are foolishly conducted, but in essence they are the co-operative societies of insurance—we are not going to see them penalised and destroyed, and the great companies walk away with even a greater monopoly than what they have to-day.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: The House has listened with interest to the speech which the hon. Member opposite has just made. I venture to think that the real argument behind his speech was illustrated when he said that the real remedy for this state of affairs lies in public ownership. H e could not have chosen a more unfortunate illustration or suggestion, because many Members of this House will be aware that there is already a State industrial insurance scheme in existence, and it has been in existence since 1864.
It is a good example of what the State can do, and if one compares it with what the industrial insurance institutions have done it gives a very striking example of a good many of those lessons which were pointed out in the Debate the other night. I asked the Postmaster-General to-day what was the extent of the business of the Post Office Life Insurance scheme which has been in existence since the year 1864, which has the State guarantee behind it, and the full force of the Post Offices of the country. This was the reply I received:
 The number of contracts in force on the 31st December, 1922, was 11,392. The amount of premiums received and the number of contracts effected during the year ended the 31st December, 1922, was £18,000 and 241, respectively.
That is the result of years of working of a State socialist insurance scheme. I venture to say that those are ludicrous results, and that a careful examination of the Post Office life insurance scheme reveals some very interesting facts. In the first place, they show a constant decrease in the business itself. They show a constant depreciation in the value of the fund, and, what is more remarkable still, an increase in the expenses ratio. I was very interested to hear the Solicitor-General talk about the necessity of the valuation of these insurance institutions and the necessity of these valuations being made publicly known. It is a very surprising thing that in connection with the Post Office scheme no valuation of the funds is ever publicly made. When the Life Insurance Companies Act was passed some few years ago at the instance of the Government of the day, every insurance institution had to make public its valuation except the Post Office Life Insurance scheme. That is an extraordinry example of what is likely to happen when the State goes in for insurance business.
I was hoping in connection with a scheme of this kind that we should see at any rate an absence of unnecessary Regulations and questions. I have in my hand now the Proposal Form which, after some little, effort, one can obtain from all past offices in the country. It contains no less than 34 questions which must be answered before anyone can insure in the Post Office scheme, and it may interest the hon. Gentleman opposite the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) to know that one of the questions
everyone who desires to insure in the State scheme has to answer is number 13, a rather significant number, which asks:
 Have you been vaccinated? 
Question number 12, which the State puts to intending insurers, asks this question, which is also of interest, perhaps, to all Members of the House:
 What average amount of fermented or spirituous liquors do you take daily? 
I am very interested when an hon. Member opposite says that this is the sort of thing which is of much more benefit to the country than the insurance institutions that we are now discussing and to sec what the State does with reference to lapses of policies. It actually provides in this State scheme that if premiums are not paid within 15 days, the policy will lapse. Again, a very strong point has been made against the insurance institutions as to whether they give proper surrender of their policies. Again, I find in the State scheme that unless you have insured for two years you get no surrender at all, and if you have paid premiums over two years, the surrenders you get are such sums as the National Debt Commissioners may determine. When one turns to what the State scheme has done with reference to investments, I notice that the average rate of interest which they are paying to policy holders in the Post Office is 2½ per cent.
When you compare the result of all that effort, when you think that you have the whole of the post offices of the country at the disposal of the scheme, all the postmasters and postmistresses, and yet end up with a trifling number of policies; and when you compare that with the result of the insurance institutions of the country I do say, at any rate, there is something to be said for them. I must say the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General rather reminded me a little of a prosecuting counsel at the Old Bailey. After all, there is some good to be said for industrial insurance. I suppose it has come to the rescue, so far as funerals are concerned, of many millions of people in this country, and when I hear of criticisms by hon. Friends opposite about the big dividends that are paid, I can only add this very significant fact to the statements he has made, and it is a very extraordinary one, that the companies
which pay the biggest dividend in connection with this business are the most stable companies and the most popular companies so far as policyholders in the companies are concerned I think that, so far from belittling the efforts of people who are successful in this particular connection, there is a good deal to be said from the point of view of the tax collectors in this country in favour of people who can make, at any rate, a very fair sum out of their business.
I only want to add this further word in favour of the Bill. I believe this Bill will add greatly to the stability of these institutions, and I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to confirm me in this, that most of the large offices already comply with the majority of the proposals that are contained in this Measure. So far as the statutory deposit of £20,000 which it is suggested should be made is concerned, that is a very excellent provision, but the hon. Gentleman opposite immediately places this House in a difficulty. He points to the failure, and the very regrettable failure, of an insurance company which has just taken place. One of the means of preventing these failures is to have a deposit of £20,000 made before the company commences business, but directly you begin to yield to suggestions that this society or that company should not make the deposit you are immediately in a difficulty, and I venture to think that so far as the smaller offices are concerned —because I desire to see them continue in existence and, if possible, prosper— the best suggestion would be to give power to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, who, by the way, is a most excellent and able official of the Government, to give them time to get this deposit together. If possible, let them contribute so much every year towards it, but he ought to be satisfied that if that permission is given to them there is some reasonable prospect of the deposit being forthcoming.
The only other observation I want to make in connection with this Measure is in relation to the expenses Clause. It is quite true, as Lord Parmoor has said, that this Bill completely carries out the recommendations of his Committee. It is undoubtedly a matter of comment that the expenses of these institutions are in many respects very high, though it is only fair
to say of the Prudential Assurance Company, as it has been adversely commented on to-night, that it is one of the companies with the lowest expense ratio. There is a large number of the smaller companies in which hon. Members of this House are interested which show a very heavy expense ratio indeed. This Clause is a very fair way of dealing with the matter. It attacks it at the right end. It is a very bad principle for this House to lay down that a certain insurance business or any other business should not be able to earn more than a particular rate of dividend. That would have a very bad effect indeed. I do think that the provision in this Bill which takes the matter by the right method is a very valuable one indeed.
The necessity for the passing of this Bill is, in my judgment, urgent. There is a large number of institutions with regard to which the provisions of the Bill ought immediately to be put into operation. If they are it will have a very beneficial effect on the policy holders. So far as the large companies are concerned, the majority have already these provisions in force. I do ask the House and hon. Gentlemen opposite to expedite the passage of this Bill, and in Committee we can consider the suggestion which can and no doubt ought to be made. I believe that this Bill deserves a Second Reading with a view to examining it carefully in Committee.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: The Bill now engaging the attention of the House is so voluminous and complex that I am afraid general agreement upon its provisions may cause us to lose sight of the effect of some of the clauses. This is not the occasion on which to submit the Bill to anything in the nature of very close criticism. My prime object in rising is to call attention to two Clauses which, I think, will inflict a very grave injustice on a large number of people in this country and in this respect produce an effect which was surely never intended when this Bill was first promoted. I refer first to Clause 7, which purports to put the collecting societies on exactly the same basis as the industrial assurance companies. It makes provision for them to provide immediately, or within five years at the discretion of the Commissioner, a sum of £20,000 by way of a deposit. Obviously it is no use having a provision in your statutes permitting these collect-
ing societies to be formed, if we are going to pass subsequent legislation of this sort which will in effect prevent these societies from coming into existence in the future. I think that this Bill is probably unique inasmuch as it attempts to rope in all existing societies. In the past all legislation of this sort has exempted the existing societies. For instance, under the Companies Assurance Act, 1909, Section 31, which related to fire insurance companies, provided:
 Such of the provisions of this Act as relate to deposits to be made under this Act shall not apply with respect the fire insurance business carried on by the company if the company has commenced to carry on that business within the United Kingdom before the passing of this Act.
The same provision applied to accident insurance companies, bond investment companies and employers' liability insurance companies. As a matter of fact, when the Life Assurance Act of 1870 was passed, all the existing companies were exempt. We might to-night ask ourselves what would have been the effect if in 1870 the Life Assurance Act of that year had attempted to rope in all the existing societies. At that time the combined funds, of the Pearl, Refuge, Britannic, and the British Legal and London and Manchester companies did not amount to the sum necessary to put up the deposit. If the Act of 1870 therefore had made the provision which this Bill seeks to make, those companies would have been stifled out of existence on the coming into operation of that Act. This Bill attempts to put the collecting societies on the same basis as the industrial assurance companies. But there is really no analogy. The avowed object is undeniably that of giving security, and whereas it may be some security, though I do not think it will be very much, for the policy holder to know that a sum of £20,000 of someone else's money, some shareholders' money, is ear-marked for the purpose of providing some security, it certainly can be no security for the policy holder in an ordinary collecting friendly society to know that the money which he helps to provide is locked up with the Government instead of being invested by the trustees of that society.
The collecting societies differ again from the insurance societies inasmuch as they are mutual; they cannot possibly have any capital with which to start. In
1909, 40 years after the passing of the Act of 1870, the Prudential Company had to deposit £20,000, but I am sure that there is no one in this House who will suggest that the sum of £20,000 so deposited by the Prudential Company afforded any real security to the policy holders. If it is to be a security, surely the amount deposited should have some relation to the magnitude of the company's liabilities. This Bill, by stifling out of existence collecting societies, will inflict a very grievous blow on thrift and helf-help which attributes we want to encourage. There are some 35 collecting societies in existence in this country. The hon. Member for Sterling (Mr. T. Johnston) gave an instance of one in his locality. There are many others which, although they are perfectly sound in themselves and are doing a great work, would be wiped out of existence by this Bill, and the only result of the Bill would be that those people who try to provide for themselves by joining these societies will be forced into the hands of the big industrial companies, which are certainly doing very well now and need no encouragement from this House or from anyone else. As an indication of the likely effect I will read an advertisement which appeared quite recently in an insurance journal. It stated:
 There is every likelihood of a number of small collecting societies being forced out of existence by the drastic provisions of the new Bill, especially in the question of finding the £20,000 deposit and also complying with the strict valuation conditions.
That is indicative of the eagle eye of the big insurance companies, which are evidently hoping that these friendly societies will no longer be allowed to exist, so that they may rope in the 150,000 men who have endeavoured for many years past to make provision for themselves through the operation of the friendly societies. There are some people who believe that the bigger the society the greater the benefit that they will derive from it. I am not a monopolist. All these companies were small at one stage of their career. We ought to endeavour to promote the fruitful principle of self-help, instead of trying to stifle it, out of existence. We are all anxious, as far as we possibly can, to avoid fraud, but I am not so sure that the provision of a deposit of £20,000 is going to have that effect. As a matter of
fact, when the Act of 1870 was passed, the existing companies were then exempted, but of those life assurance companies which came into existence after the passing of the Act and had to make a deposit, we find notwithstanding the provision as to the deposit many of these companies inflicted serious loss upon their policy holders, such as the National Standard, the Popular Life, the British Natural Premium, the New Era and the Universal. All of these companies, with the exception of the Universal, came under the provisions of the 1870 Act and deposited £20,000 by way of security, but the provision of that sum of money did not prevent these companies from inflicting grievous loss upon the policy holders who were interested in them.
We are told this is an agreed Bill. It is only agreed to by the very large insurance companies. So far as I know, the friendly collecting societies have not been consulted and certainly these Clauses seem to have been agreed upon for the extermination of those collecting societies. I ask the House to take that point seriously into consideration. The Lord Chancellor, in another place on 20th February, acknowledged this injustice, and as a result, I believe, paragraph (c) (1) of Clause 7 was inserted in the Bill, under which the Registrar may postpone the demanding of the £20,000 security for five years. This is too much power to put into the hands of one individual, and I wish to know if the Registrar is to be the sole judge, and if there is to be no appeal from his decision. Let us assume for a moment that a friendly collecting society is in a position to put up the £20,000. I believe there are a few in existence who may be able to comply with this provision of the Bill. They may have assets of some £25,000 or £30,000, but the putting up of the £20,000 security is not going to help the policyholders because it is merely going to tie up that amount of money. If the society has a large number of policyholders engaged in hazardous occupations, and by some misfortune sustains serious loss as the result of an explosion or a great accident in the works where a number of policyholders are employed, is it going to benefit the policyholders to find that £20,000, which might in other circumstances be utilised to meet the liabilities of the society, is locked up almost indefinitely with the State? No case has
been made out for the extinction of the friendly collecting societies, and if the Government cannot see these way to waive these provisions so far as friendly societies which may be formed in the future are concerned, I submit that in accordance with all precedent those now engaged in the business, and who have been carrying on their good work satisfactorily, should be exempt from the operations of Clause 7 of the Bill.
There is one other matter to which I direct the attention of the House. Clause 23 deals with lapsed policies. I tried to follow the reasoning of the Solicitor-General but I can see no justification why the coming into operation of the provision which legalises giving the surrender value of a policy or giving a free policy should be deferred for five years. In this respect the friendly collecting societies which the Bill seeks to exterminate, have given a very good lesson to the big insurance companies, because in all their rules they make provision for the surrender value or for a free policy. It seems to me Sub-section (5) of Clause 23 should be left out and that from the coming into operation of the Bill, all those who are unfortunate enough to be unable to continue the payment of their premiums should have attached to their policy a surrender value with immediate effect, instead of having to wait for a period of five years before it becomes a legal enactment. I submit these few matters to the consideration of the House in the hope that something may be done, in the Committee stage, to remove one or two of the obvious injustices to which I have endeavoured to call attention.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I desire to help this Bill through, because I think that it will go some way to protect poor, weak, defenceless people from being robbed. There is one thing needed about a Bill of this character, and that is that it should not be too drastic, for this reason. Thrift societies, industrial assurance societies, have done a great deal of good in this country. They have helped people to save who would not otherwise have saved, and they have helped great bodies of money to be got together which have been of much use to the country in time of war, because they have been used for the purposes of defence, but they have had another effect, of which we must not lose sight. Large
volumes of money have been directed into assurance cisterns from which companies and collecting societies have been able to lend funds to municipalities on the security of the rates, which have helped—and I have had some experience of that sort of work myself—the municipalities at cheap rates of interest to drain, light, pave and improve the dwellings of the working people in various localities. For those reasons, I say that a Bill of this kind must not be too drastic, for fear of frightening people from investing their money in small and, for a time insolvent, and although it may seem a paradox to say it, even fraudulent collecting societies.
The Bill will not hurt the great companies and societies—they have nothing to fear—and it will give those which are not quite solvent five years in which to put their house in order. I would even enlarge that space of time, for the purpose of giving those societies which are not quite solvent every opportunity, every occasion, to put their house in order, because I think it would be a great disaster if the working people had their faith shaken in industrial assurance of arty solvent kind. I listened to the hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) when he was talking about the illdeeds of various societies, but we on this side do not pay much attention to the lines on which he was proceeding. We have heard him before, with regard to the Sudan Plantations, when he tried to make our flesh creep some months ago. When he made use of the argument of the Prudential Insurance Company paying 1,300 per cent. I joined issue. I took occasion to look that up before I came to the House, and I find their capital is £1,000,000, fully paid up, and they paid £625,000 dividend and bonus last year. There is no getting away from the fact that that is 621 per Pent., and not. 1,300 per cent. If the hon. Member for West Stirling can do a multiplication sum, he can prove for himself that what I say is true, and that his assertion is utterly baseless. Although I am not insured myself in the Prudential Company, I would like to state, having looked into their accounts, that if I were to insure my life again I should probably go to that company, because I find that it is one of the best managed and one of the cheapest companies to go to. Indeed, I should be quite content that the in-
heritance of my children should come out of the Prudential Company. Although they pay very large dividends, at least four-fifths of all the profits made by the company are divided as bonus between the policy-holders and the staff, and one-fifth goes to the shareholders in the form of bonus. In consequence the bigger the profits made by such a company, whether the Prudential Company or the X Y Z Company, the better it is for the policyholders and the better it is for the staff. That is the answer to the hon. Member for West Stirling.

Mr. BROAD: May I ask whether that refers to the industrial branch, or the ordinary branch

Mr. SAMUEL: It refers to the total amount of money distributed by the Prudential directors in the form of benefits to the shareholders. They distributed last year £625,000, of which £400,000 or £500,000 was a fixed dividend. The bonus added for the benefit of the shareholders was in the proportion of one-fifth to the shareholders and four-fifths to the policy holders and staff. The consequence was that policy holders and staff got four times more bonus than the shareholders. What do you deduce from that, Why four-fifths of the profits go as bonus to people—assured or staff—other than the shareholders? I was very glad that the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir Kingsley Wood) took up the point about the remedy proposed by the hon. Member for West Stirling, namely, public ownership. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich had gone much further, and said then, as he could well have said, that one reason why the public do not go to the Post Office and take out assurances and annuities is that the benefits offered by the Government are too dear. The great companies can give the public better advantage for less money. That is the answer to that. I would like to direct, attention to one or two Clauses of this Bill. I shall support the Bill. It is a good Bill. I think it may do good, and might do better. With regard to Clause 7, I think it ought to be amended, and I would like to draw the attention of the Solicitor-General to this point. How can he justify asking a small and honest collecting company, which is perfectly' solvent, which has
assets balancing liabilities of somewhere about £6,000 or £7,000, to put down £20,000 as a deposit? It is an unreasonable request. So long as you have in existence a solvent company, even it be small, why drive it out of existence? There is no justification for that. Therefore, I would make this suggestion, that in the case of an existing solvent company, the deposit should be not more than either the assets or the liabilities. That is to say, where the company has £6,000 or £7,000 of liabilities, and £6,000 or £7,000 of assets, let that company be asked, if it be in existence, to deposit no more than £6,000 or £7,000 interest-bearing securities, the interest on which, of course, will accrue for the benefit of the company. I say nothing about future companies, but, so far as the past is concerned, I think it would be unwise, and, what is more, very unfair to drive those little and solvent people out.
As to Clause 14, relating to balance sheets and audit, the hon. Member for West Stirling made some play about the City Life Assurance Company. I do not think this Bill will stop scandals of that kind. No Act of Parliament will prevent some thief from picking my pocket of my watch when I walk outside this House. You cannot stop fraud by Act of Parliament. If you have a fraudulent director or fraudulent manager, and he is bent on robbing those who have entrusted their money to him, you will not be able to stop him doing that by Act of Parliament. I am all with the hon. Member that such a scandal ought not to occur again, and if this Bill will stop it recurring so much the better. But I do agree with the hon. Member with regard to the amount of fees paid to the company of which I have not caught the name, If the Board of Directors of a company, however wealthy the company is, however prosperous, and however honest, takes £62,500 in the form of fees, I say that that sum should be disclosed in the balance sheet. It will then give those interested in the company, whether policyholders or shareholders, an opportunity of protesting.
Before this Debate came on, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise) and myself handed in an Amendment to Clause 14. I have not the words in my mind at the moment, but it goes a long way to meet the point raised and is an
innovation in the conduct of business undertakings, but we have thought fit to put in this further protection for working people. The balance sheet should, under Clause 14, show how much is paid in the way of direction and management remuneration, fees, and commissions for carrying on the company. In future in such a state of affairs as that disclosed by the hon. Member opposite, where £62,500 is involved, there would be an opportunity of those interested, either as policy holders or shareholders, putting their foot down and helping to stop such extravagant payments. I hope hon. Members on the Labour benches will help us in seeing that these disbursements are made disclosable under Clause 14.
Clause 17 contains a technical point to which I should like to call attention. I interrupted the Solicitor-General when he was making his speech. What is going to be the effect of the following words:
 (f) The Commissioner, if satisfied on any valuation that any of the foregoing provisions of this section have not been complied with, or that the industrial assurance fund as stated in the valuation balance sheet is greater than the value of the assets available for the liabilities of that fund,…
I refer especially to the last few words. The provision is all very well so far as the valuation of liability is concerned. You value the liabilities of the assurance and collecting societies under the mortality tables, and by means of the usual knowledge possessed by assurance companies. But how are you going to value assets? Take, for instance, the assets which may come under such headings as local loans, war loans, and other classes which are quoted every day on the market; those you can get accurate account about, so far as their value is concerned, but suppose, in addition to these assets, we have reversions of life interests, say, dependent upon certain contingencies, which I cannot explain as it would take too long, but which are not governed by these tables? Or an investment of the sort which I have in mind, may turn out to be very valuable, say, land for development, a patent, a holding in a mine or factory. How are you going to value these assets? I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) that these are speculative and undesirable assets. There is nothing to prevent companies or
societies holding such as assets. How are you to value them? I think this Clause will be entirely valueless unless the Solicitor-General provides that the valuation of unquoted assets is going to be carried out more exactly than this Clause provides. I intend to give this Bill what little help I can. I agree with it in principle. Those for whom the Labour Members have made a special appeal it may go a long way to protect; that is to say, the weak, the innocent and the poor. That is what we want to do. But there are certain Clauses whose weakness I have pointed out to the House—Clauses 7, 14 and 17—which need Amendment, that I trust they will get in Committee.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: In the first place, we are grateful to the Solicitor-General for the very clear explanation he has given of the Bill, especially in view of his temporary physical disability. I want to refer to a few of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat. He referred to the fact that the larger were the companies engaged in industrial insurance, and the bigger their financial operations, the more likely they were to be of real stability, and, therefore, of benefit to the community. He went on to say that they had been of very great assistance to the country in a time of stress, and that they were also of continuous assistance in financing municipalities and various public bodies. I think the point made by the hon. Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. Johnston), with regard to public ownership, is very important in that connection. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire feels, as I am sure a large number of Members on this side feel, that it is a very great mistake, which ought to be remedied, for one large corporation to be able to accumulate funds from the weekly subscriptions of the working classes of this country, and then, by the possession of large actuarial funds of that kind, to be in a position practically to dictate financial policy to the Government or the municipalities.

Mr. SAMUEL: Does the hon. Member think that I had that in mind? I had not. What I meant was that assurance concerns having obtained this money from the poor, they can offer to lend it to such municipalities or the Government at rates which it may or may not please the borrowers to pay.
They are not bound to borrow the money; but at a proper rate of interest they can and do use it to improve the housing conditions or the drainage of many municipalities in the country.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am not disputing that there may have been a benefit in many cases, but it may be a menace for private corporations, out of subscriptions obtained from large masses of the working classes, to build up a financial position which would enable them to dictate financial policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I want to put this point to hon. Members, who have a wider knowledge of finance than I have. There are again and again occasions when the Government and municipalities cannot proceed unless they get immediate and cheap loans, and, being practically in the hands of a small group of financiers, they have to go, sometimes almost cap in hand, to the large insurance companies for finance. There is another point to which I want to refer. I am very glad to note that the hon. Member for Farnham is going to press forward an amendment that there shall be shown in the balance-sheets of industrial insurance concerns the fees paid to directors.

Mr. SAMUEL: We have put an Amendment down.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am very glad to hear it, and I am sure that hon. Members on this side will support it. The hon. Member, as he gets a wider knowledge of the Members who sit on these benches, will find that the one thing we say to our people is, "You are entitled to know the facts." There was one matter upon which he touched which is of some importance. He said that in order that the shareholders might know where their money is going—

Mr. SAMUEL: And the policy-holders as well.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Yes, he said that, but in the particular instance which has moved the hon. Member to some indignation, that of the Refuge Insurance Company, we were told by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire that there were only seven directors participating in this payment of £62,000, and that they and their families were holding the major block of shares in the company as well.
That can also be confirmed from Lord Parmoor's Report. The people, therefore, who ought to be protected in a company like that are not the shareholders, but the policy-holders. With regard to the point which the hon. Member made as to valuation, I think that we owe a debt of gratitude to the two very experienced and able civil servants who sat on Lord Parmoor's Committee, and for the drafting of the particular Clause in the Bill concerning valuation. I believe that that Clause is stronger, or, at any rate, of more utility, than the one which was included in Lord Onslow's Measure introduced last year, and I am persuaded, from my knowledge of the working of the Department which will have charge of the carrying out of this Clause, that the hon. Member need have no fear that there will not be a sufficient, check upon the companies and societies with regard to their mode of valuation of assets as well as of liabilities.
I wanted to say a word with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). He made a rather extraordinary attack upon the Post Office system of industrial insurance. I hold no brief for the Post Office system of industrial insurance but I think it is only fair to suggest to the House that it was not, at any rate, a Government which was generally favourable to collective ownership or public ownership of essential things for the life of the people, which was responsible for the drafting of the regulations for the setting up of the Department or its efficient running. It is quite clear from the Report of the Lord Parmoor Committee, that they, at any rate, did not consider the possibility of the working of Post Office insurance, They recommended that there should be a careful inquiry and overhaul of the whole system of Post Office insurance, to make it of greater utility to the community generally. The hon. Gentleman's criticism that, he had great difficulty in obtaining a proposal form from the Post Office is, as many of us know only too well, quite justified. We want a Post Office system of insurance, or any system of insurance which is collectively and publicly owned for the benefit of the people, using all the up-to-date methods, and all the able organisation of existing companies which the hon. Gentleman so ably represents.

Sir K. WOOD: Do not the co-operative societies desire profits?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I will take up that challenge. Co-operative societies are not run for the division of profit at any rate per cent. upon the shares held by shareholders. They are run on a, collective basis for the benefit of all their members —the usual basis. In that respect, therefore, they are collective ownership. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Johnston) said quite clearly—and that was why, I think, the hon. Member's reference to the Post Office was unjustifiable—that he wanted public ownership, public control, and to use all the existing organisations for that purpose. The real point comes in there, if the hon. Member will think about it. He is right up against paying 62½ per cent, on the capital, which he argues, is fully paid up.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Notwithstanding the 62½ per cent. that they paid, the Prudential can give the public a better service for less money than the Post Office or the co-operative society can give.

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is because, in the meantime, they have built up such an enormous business that they are able to introduce what might well be produced under public ownership—the block system. That is a very great saving indeed. When the hon. Member says that not only are the expenses less and the benefits to the policy-holders greater, some of us will immediately join issue with him. Certainly the benefits paid on policies by some of these large companies are no better, and sometimes not as good, as the benefits paid by smaller collecting societies, which are worked on a mutual basis. The one thing we are up against, and must be up against, as what amounts to an exploitation of the industrial workers of this country, who are only able to afford a, few pence per week in order to meet some of the greatest crises in the industrial world. When the bad time comes to these people and they are on the rocks, all the money goes to swell the profits—not altogether of the policyholders and the shareowners in working-class life. The profits even reach 62½ per cent. a year, in a very small shareholding in a large company.
Those hon. Friends of mine here who believe in the co-operative or public ownership system. [HON. MEMBERS:
" Which? "] Either. Those who are true co-operators are leading up to a co-operative commonwealth, and we are not ashamed of the fact. We have as a practical measure laid down this cardinal principle, which all those who are dealing in businesses which affect the life, health, wealth of the people might do well to copy. It is that limitation of interest upon share capital is made, and in all the share capital used in co-operative work and business such as this the limitation is 5 per cent., and when we read of companies which have been operating for years in industrial assurance with what was originally only a small cash capital and pay almost unlimited interest upon share capital today, we might well point out with some force the suggestion made in the Parmoor Committee Report, that they might reconsider the question of a division of their surplus.
In that connection may I offer a criticism of the Bill with regard to the division of surpluses. In Lord Onslow's Measure there was a Sub-section dealing with the limitation of expenses. That has been taken out of the Bill, and some of us are sorry it has gone. Others do not agree. It laid it down that after expenses had been limited you could use a certain part of the rest of the surplus for expenses, but at least half should be given to the policy holders. We think it a very great pity that in the amended Bill there is not some definite provisions with regard to the division of the surplus as between the shareholders and the policy holders. We believe the Bill has many faults. We hope to deal with some of them in Committee. We are glad to have the assurance of the Solicitor-General that we shall be able to make some of these points in Committee and that he will give them careful consideration. But we submit that the Bill is long overdue. The Parmoor Committee Report was issued more than three years ago. It is only now that we are considering in this House, though a Bill was introduced in another place last year, a really practical means for putting into operation the recommendations of the Committee. [Interruption.] All the more hard to understand why, after three years' notice practically had been given by Lord Parmoor's Committee of the need for societies to put their houses
in order with regard to payment of surrender values, of free paid-up policies, it should require another five years to put their house in order. That is particularly to be noted, because the areas most affected are the very areas in which there has been a tremendous amount of unemployment and if there is going to be a still further staving off of the time when policies shall have some cash or surrender value, or alternatively the actuarial value of free paid-up policies, there must be considerable hardship to those workers who have insured during the last three or four years and who must now allow their policies to lapse because of the strain of unemployment. But whilst we have these criticisms to offer—we agree largely with the criticisms of the hon. Member for West Stirling—we are glad that there is a very great step forward in this Bill towards controlling industrial insurance and we hope to do what we can to amend it in Committee.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. CAUTLEY: As the only surviving Member of the last House who was a Member of the Committee, I should like to say one or two words about what the Committee did. In the first place, we took steps to make ourselves acquainted with the views of every magistrate in the country, and every county court judge, and we also heard every witness who was willing to give evidence before us. One or two made it their business to hunt up cases of fraud. It is due to everybody engaged in this very large business to say that, apart from gross cases of fraud in the initiation of collecting societies, there was remarkably little evidence before the Committee of any system of fraud or anything of that sort in the dealings between the agents and the policyholders, or between the companies and societies and the policyholders. We did, however, find that under the existing law there was nothing to prevent two, three or four people joining together, forming a society under the Collecting Society Act, and starting the business of collecting these moneys by weekly sums of 1d., 2d. or 3d. As the House knows, the claims do not fall due until long after the collection, and the men at the head of affairs voted themselves large salaries
and ultimately when the claims began to come in all the money had been taken out by the people directing the society, and the poor policy holders were left to whistle for their money. That was one of the first abuses that has to be corrected, and one way of doing that is to make a large sum necessary as a deposit for the security of the people concerned. It has come to me as a surprise to hear that this is going to hit the small collecting societies. It is now three years since we sat on the Committee, but my recollection is that the collecting societies include only those societies which collect premiums beyond a distance of 10 miles from the office. If anything can be done to meet the case of the collecting societies which have been mentioned in the Debate, I should like to see it.
With regard to the suggestions of fraud, they have been very few. One of the elements, I remember, that lead to the suggestion of fraud in cases that came before the bench and the County Court Judge was where the proposal forms had been filled up by the agent instead of the person who was being insured. We have suggested steps to remove that, and in this Bill there is a provision that the agent shall not fill the form himself. The real trouble of all this business is that it costs an enormous amount, to collect these weekly contributions. When it is recollected that out of every 1s. contributed by the assured 5¼d. goes in expenses, the House will easily see that it is a very costly system of insurance. The same thing happens in retail trades. If you buy your goods in ½d. or 1d. packets, whether they are biscuits or anything else, you pay infinitely more than you do if you buy in large quantities. More particularly is this the case if you have the goods wrapped in paper and delivered at your own houses. The essence and foundation of this business is the canvassing of the working people of this country who are mainly concerned in industrial assurance, and as a rule it is the worker's family who are insured rather than the worker himself. He will not take the slightest trouble for himself, and the same remark applies to the woman of the house. and they will only insure when the insurance agent induces them to take out a policy and to pay these weekly contributions, He will not walk across
to the Post Office where similar policies are issued at half the cost.
The main cause of the cost lies in the fees and commissions paid to the agents for running round to the various houses each week and collecting these pennies and twopences. If that is the popular want, there is no reason why that popular want should not be supplied. What we on the Committee felt was that all we could do was to take such steps as we could to see that the business was honestly transacted, and to ensure as largo a proportion going to the assured as possible. A. limitation of profits is no good whatever to my mind, because we found that, neither in the amounts offered, nor in the particular contributions, was there any advantage between the collecting society and the company. On the contrary, they all ran very much on the same lines.
When we are told that a company pays large dividends to its shareholders, one may just as well say that the large collecting societies pay their money away in expenses, instead of to shareholders in the way of profits. They give no more to the policy-holder than do the companies. We were told that when a collecting society got into the hands of the agents, and were managed by the agents, the result was a great deal more waste and extravagance in its management than there was in a company's management. What were we to do? The Committee came to this conclusion—that if we could ensure the safety of the insurance funds, if we could take care that the first charge on all the money collected was the insurance funds, and that a stringent valuation should be made, there would be very much less money left out of contributions either to be wasted amongst the agents, where the agents managed the company, or in going in dividends to the shareholders, where the companies were carrying on the business. The House will find, on looking through this Bill, that it does carry out that principle above all others—that we ensure the safety of the contributions to that extent, that the policy-holders are made as secure as it possible to make them, under the care of this estimable gentleman the Commissioner.
That is all I have to say, except one thing. I have no interest in either com-
pany or collecting society of any sort or kind, but I think it ought to be brought to the attention of the House that the Prudential Company have particularly set the lead in reducing these expenses. They have started this new system, which is called the block system, of preventing the overlapping of agencies in a great measure, and they are doing everything they legitimately can to lessen the expense, and lessen this 5½d. It is not correct to say that they have not given bonuses. Their bonuses have increased and been given during the last two years, and are increasing. In answer to a question put by one hon. Member who very much hit the mark in suggesting that these bonuses have not been given to those insured in the industrial assurance branch, I would say the the Prudential have renewed the practice discontinued during the War, and have extended these bonuses to the industrial branch, and to this extent are carrying out the Committee's suggestion. I am satisfied that this Bill, in the words of Lord Parmoor, does carry out all the recommendations contained in our Report, and we do think it a practical, workmanlike, business proposition. I understand it has been accepted by the companies and collecting societies, not because they particularly liked it, but as an attempt to ensure this business being carried out more economically and more safely, and that the Bill is on the whole an approved Bill.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: May I ask the House to give me the Second Reading of this Bill? It has been the subject of a long and informative debate, the many points raised will receive my consideration, and I will undertake that either Amendments will be put down to deal with the more substantial suggestions or that Members' proposals will receive full consideration with a view to securing and strengthening legitimate business and preventing illegitimate business. I should be grateful to hon. Members if they would give me the Second Reading.

Mr. T. THOMSON: [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide! "] There is just one question I should like to ask. We shall not all be on the Committee upstairs, and the point refers to War Bond policies which have lapsed. The right hon. Gentleman men-
tioned Clause 29 which refers to War Bond policies existing at, the passing of this Bill. The question to which I wish to direct attention is the existence of a large number of War Bond policies which have already lapsed, and I would like to know what provision the Government intend to make for these policy holders who in the excitement of the War, from patriotic motives, and when the tanks went round, invested a large part of their savings in what were described—I have a circular here—as National War Bonds but which they find to be an ordinary industrial policy which is not worth the paper on which it is written. There are, I understand, large numbers of people who invested their money in that way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide! "] I am astonished that Members of the Labour party are anxious to shut down—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask your question!"] I am anxious to know, seeing that there is no provision in the Bill, what the Government proposes to do for these policy holders of the War Bond policies that have lapsed. I am not talking of something I do not know. I have seen the policies and books themselves described as National War Bonds, premiums have been paid—and in one case £14, and in another £20—notice of cancellation has been sent to the insured person, and the whole of the money spent wiped out. There is no possibility, so far as I can tell from the Bill as it now stands, of their getting any redress whatever. In answer to a question the other day, the Board of Trade said that last year alone in one company there were 31,000 policies of this kind that lapsed. 31,000 is not a small number, and that refers to one company alone. How many more there are it is impossible to say. Where you have the savings of the workers and the poorest of the poor at stake, I do not think it is out of place and one is not wasting the time of the House in asking what provision will be made by the Government for those whose money has been thrown away in this way.

Orders of the Day — GERMAN REPARATION(RECOVERY) ACT, 1921.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move:
 That the operation of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1921, be suspended.

Commander BELLAIRS: On a point of Order. Is it competent to an hon. Member to object to this Resolution being brought up half-a-dozen times during the Session on a Motion providing for the suspension of an Act by a Resolution of this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that there are many Acts like this. Under this Statute, there is a provision that the Act may be suspended by a Resolution passed by the two Houses of Parliament, and this procedure is in pursuance of the provisions of the Statute.

Captain BENN: This Motion gives me the opportunity of drawing attention to the very severe hardships suffered at present by British traders in occupied and indeed unoccupied Germany. I am very much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for coming here to answer on behalf of the Government. In 1921 we were engaged in negotiations with the German Government as to the amount of indemnity for which they would accept liability. There had been a conference in London at which no agreement had been reached, and agreement was not reached until the Conference in Paris later in the same year. At that time it was considered wise to have a Bill which provided that on all German goods reaching this country only a certain percentage should be paid by the importer to the German exporter, and the remainder of the price was to be paid to the Treasury by way of reparation, the German Government being invited to reimburse their own exporter by the amount which had been deducted by the British importer. It was believed that in this way large sums of money would be secured for this country. Alternatively it was argued that if the German Government refused to reimburse us, punitive sanction would force them to agree to some measure of reparation. When the Act was in passage in both Houses very optimistic estimates of the yield were made. The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Birkenhead, calculated
that in full operation it would produce £100,000,000 per annum to this country. We know quite well that many of the opinions then held turned out to be without foundation. Some of the criticisms that we offered were unfounded and many of the hopes of the Government were unjustified. In fact, the yield is about £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 for the two years that it has been in operation. Therefore, we can say that as a revenue getter it has not been very successful. That leads us to ask, who, in fact, is paying the duty? It is possible that a country which has all the advantages for export may, in practice, raise the price which would otherwise be charged, and cause the British importer to pay this so-called German reparation. That is, of course, a matter for argument and I certainly do not intend to dogmatise upon it now. All hon. Members will agree, however, that the yield has been very much smaller than anything hoped for by its promoters.
There is another general objection of importance. The Bill originally provided that any goods of 75 per cent. German ingredients, from whatever port or country exported to this country, should be subject to duty. We pointed out that the proposal was not practicable, that if the goods were bought by Dutch or Belgians and sent here, it would be impossible to examine them as they entered and say, "This article is more than 75 per cent. ingredient of German origin and is subject to duty." The then President of the Board of Trade laughed that objection out of court; he said that it was an objection of no weight. As a fact, the difficulties were so great that almost as soon as the Bill had been put into operation the Treasury made an Order that the duty should not be charged except on goods coming direct to this country from Germany, so that if a Belgian or a Dutchman became the genuine owner of German goods before exporting them to this country, he could export them and evade the duty altogether. What is the result of that on British trade? It means that a trade like the refining of chemicals, which might have been done here, or entrepot trade, was to some extent transferred from these shores to some country like Belgium or Holland, very much to the detriment of our own traders. There is no question about that; it is the source of common complaint. I
have dealt with two objections—first, that as a producer of money the Act has been a comparative failure and, second, that it has inflicted positive harm on British traders, by transferring to foreign countries some trade which might have been done here.
Now I come to the third objection, which is, indeed, the stimulus for this Resolution. Some months ago, the French occupied the Ruhr. With the general effect of that occupation on British trade in that district I cannot deal here, but with one aspect of it I can deal. The German Government said to British and German firms exporting from Cologne and to exporters generally, "If you take a French licence for the exportation of your goods, if you pay the 10 per cent ad valorem duty imposed by the Franco-Belgian authorities, then when your goods reach the shores of Great Britain, and you put into your bank the Treasury document entitling you to 26 per cent. reimbursement, we, in that ease will not reimburse and consequently you will only get 74 per cent. of the value of your goods." That is a very serious threat, and I was surprised to hear the representative of the Overseas Trade Department to-day declare that the Foreign Office had not any knowledge of this proceeding He said it had not come to their knowledge that the German Government refused to reimburse the 26 per cent. in those cases. So long as they reimbursed the instrument, clumsy and unproductive though it was, at any rate was an instrument of sorts. The moment they ceased to reimburse, it became something altogether different, and I was amazed to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department say that his Department had no knowledge of the German Government's decision. The Chamber of Commerce of Cologne know it perfectly well, and in their printed documents, including the little bulletin which they issue, they refer to this decision.
What is the result of this decision on the exporters, many of whom are British firms? I have one letter from a firm stating:
 This firm is composed entirely of ex-service men—a major, a lieutenant, and a corporal—who, after demobilisation, found ourselves compelled to look to new channels. We therefore established ourselves as manufacturers' agents and merchants here in Cologne.
It is not as though the penalty was falling upon the German exporter. I myself think that. the export of German goods to this country and a corresponding export of British goods to Germany is a good thing, and should be encouraged, but, in this case, if the penalty were only falling upon German firms, one could understand it, but it is falling upon British firms, and in the occupied districts considerable suffering is being inflicted. What is going to he the result of the continued levying of the duty? The result may be of two kinds. Either the German exporter, who knows he will not be reimbursed by his own Government, will put up the price, in which case the British consumer will be asked to pay his own reparation, which to some extent he is doing, or, failing that, the trade will cease altogether. In point of fact, that is what is happening. Owing to this and other impositions of the new régime in the Ruhr, British trade is being killed stone dead. Everybody says it is not alone the licences and the duties and the orders of all kinds, but it is the difficulty of moving goods which is killing an export and import trade which is of the greatest benefit to our own country. Moreover, if we levy 26 per cent. duty on these goods, we must remember that many of them are raw materials. The French themselves import them into their own country without levying a duty, and this duty merely means the giving of an advantage to the French in regard to these raw materials. I am grateful to the House for listening so patiently at such an untoward hour. The proposal in the Resolution is a modest one. It is a suggestion which was contemplated by the Government themselves if circumstances arose such as those in which we now find ourselves. The suggestion is that in view of the difficulties with which we are now faced, in view of the attitude of the German Government so long as this struggle between France and Germany goes on, and in view of the effects upon our trade, we should, for the time being, and until the situation is made clear, suspend the collection of this Reparation Duty. It will not by any means relieve all the hardships under which our traders are suffering—far from it—but it will do somewhat to alleviate those hardships.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: I beg to second the Motion.
Probably at any time since the passing of the Act it would have been possible to have moved this Resolution, because the House was induced to pass the Act on certain representations which were then made, and while the Lord Chancellor was claiming that the result of the Act would be to bring into the coffers of the country a vast sum of money, the late Prime Minister was urging, at Bristol, that the, effect would be to strangle German trade, possibly a desirable end if it could have been achieved by such means, but it was never clearly explained how both could be right at the same time. A further representation that was made was that the other countries, France. Belgium, and others, had reserved to themselves to do what we proposed to do by the Bill, or Act as it became, of 1921. In point of fact, those countries have done nothing of the kind. Certain of the countries began to embark upon some such a policy, but they withdrew from that move, and they are no longer doing it, and France and Belgium particularly profited, to a considerable extent, as a result of the mistake which I believe we made by passing the Act of 1921. Furthermore, the provisions of the Act are detrimental to this country and should have been repealed directly the result was known. Whatever precise provisions you may make with a view to fixing upon a Government a tax of 26 per cent., it is found in practice that a part., at least, ultimately falls on the people who last handle the goods concerned, namely, the consumers.
But whatever strong grounds there may have been at all times to have passed this Resolution, there are very much stronger reasons to-day than at any previous time during the existence of the Act. Notwithstanding the Act of 1921, we have in fact been doing a considerable trade with Germany. The Act, fortunately, did not succeed in killing that trade. No doubt, for the benefit of France, Belgium and other countries, it diminished our trade, but it did not kill it, and until quite recently there was a considerable trade between the two countries, a trade which is not only presumably beneficial to merchants and employés in this country, but which, so far as it exists, must be claimed by the
Government to be beneficial to the State, inasmuch as the State benefits to the extent of 26 per cent.
May I refer to one—and only one—of many examples of how the thing is working up to the present? This case was the subject of a question which I put to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as far back as 28th February. A British firm has paid in respect of goods to be delivered from Germany £1,800 out of a total of £2,500. Part of the goods was stopped, and ultimately sent back to the place where they were despatched, and the other part has since, been lost, or disappeared in some way or other. What will be the result to the British firm in respect of that I do not know. Since I put the question, I have had the advantage of the earnest co-operation not only of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is concerned, presumably, not only to get this 26 per cent., but also to protect English trade, but I have also had the co-operation of the Board of Trade. The firm concerned has carried out every instruction that has been issued with a view of co-operating with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to get this put through. Unfortunately. I find that the two Ministers concerned have no greater influence, and certainly no greater power, to do this in the occupied territory than I myself have, though I am sure they are actuated by the greatest desire and goodwill. They are endeavouring, quite unsuccessfully, to get delivery of these goods, but it appears quite certain that we shall not get the delivery of the goods. The concession which has been got only applies to goods where there has been a completed contract, I believe, before 25th January, and as to other goods despatched before 20th February. But there is not one provision which has been made by the British Government to deal with any future contracts, or to permit British traders to continue a trade which has been profitable to them, and—if there be any foundation at all for this Act—presumably profitable to the Government. That future trade, apparently, the Government have agreed entirely to forfeit and abandon.
I are not suggesting that the difficulty at the present time is solely confined to the payment of the 26 per cent., although, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the German Government will not adhere to
the arrangement to reimburse the exporter the 26 per cent. which is deducted from the purchase price. The difficulty is not only the 26 per cent., but also a German tax and a French tax, and I am speaking now of the export and import trade. The German employés and. the French employés in turn, under different, circumstances, refuse to handle the goods, even after the three taxes have been paid. The Government might have helped, and may help in several ways. For instance, when they made a concession with regard to the question of occupation they might at least have secured a quid pro quo when they were in a position to bargain.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I would remind the bon. Gentleman that we are only discussing British trade in the Ruhr, not the general question of reparation.

Mr. GRAY: It was far from my intention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to get away from the point. My object in mentioning other cases was to show they centred round the 26 per cent. duty which is being paid under the Act of 1921. What I desired to argue was that if the Government for the time being would realise the necessity for doing what we ask, suspend the payment of this duty, that they would at least give the British traders an opportunity that has been forfeited in other directions—of competing with the French and an inducement to the Germans to co-operate with us in benefiting the trade of this country.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): I make no complaint at all of the hon. and gallant Gentleman raising this point. I had the pleasure of hearing him on it 20 months ago. He is entitled to raise it, and probably the House will be glad to have some information upon it. My hon. and gallant Friend will remember that the ruling given in the Debate on 21st July, 1921, restricted its scope considerably, and the discussion was really confined to the point whether or not ground could be shown for the suspension of the statute. The hon. and gallant Gentleman put forward a three-fold objection. The House will remember that at the time of the passing of the Act the money realised by the 50 per cent. duty came in very slowly, and three or four months after the passing of the Act the present rate of 26 per
cent. was by agreement substituted. The Act is the only Measure which has ensured the cash payment of reparations to us. It was accepted by Germany, and has been, on the whole, worked by them fairly and honourably.
The House will be familiar with the method of working under the Act. The trader in England who has German goods invoiced to him pays to the Customs 26 per cent. of the invoice price, and sends the receipt with the account to the trader in Germany, deducting from the invoice value the amount which he has already paid. The amount is then made good to the German trader, in consequence of the undertaking given by the German Government, and, from that day to this, I have no reason to believe that the German Government have evaded their responsibility and undertaking. I listened with some interest, as an old Parliamentary hand, to what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the forecasts made as to the results that might arise from this Measure. He mentioned one by the late Lord Chancellor, whom, though a man of extraordinary intellectual power, I should never have regarded as an authority on finance. If we repealed every Act which failed to realise the anticipations of those who originally advocated it, how many Acts would remain on the Statute Book? I do not think there would be many. I have had the advantage to-day of consulting with the Customs, who, of course, are the authority which advises me with reference to what is going on under this Act; and the information I have from them is that, so far as they know, the German Government is certainly carrying out its undertaking, and there is, and has been for some little time past, a remarkable freedom from complaints of any kind from traders as to any hitch in the working of the Act. The House may remember that in the early days of the Act frequent complaints came before the House by way of question, and the matter was also raised in Debate. There was a good deal of trouble before traders were able to shake down under the new conditions, but I repeat what I have been told only to-day by the Customs authorities, that for some time past they have had, and they are having to-day, no complaints from traders on that score.

Captain BENN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? I do not know whether he is going to deal with the point in a minute, and perhaps I am premature, but I have received a letter from the British Chamber of Commerce at Cologne, in which they say:
 The German Government will not refund the German reparation recovery receipts against goods exported on such licences,
that is to say, French licences.

Mr. BALDWIN: I may say a word about that. As regards the fiscal side of this Act, the actual amount of money—it is not large, I admit—that has been received from the passage of the Act to the present time is rather over £11,000,000, and since the 1st April last we have received a little over £7,000,000. It may be taken, therefore, that at present we are receiving between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000 a year, and when it is realised that this is the only cash, so far as I know, that is being paid in any form of reparations, except for such cash as is secured towards the maintenance of the armies of occupation, and when one reflects, further, that, if this money were not coming in, it would have to be raised in some form or other by the taxpayer, I think the House as a whole will be very reluctant to see this Act pass into oblivion.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman—because I did not gather it from what he said—whether the goods are coming through at the present time, and if there is any prospect of this revenue being continued? That is the basis of the complaint that we are making—that it is stopped.

Mr. BALDWIN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I have been engaged elsewhere all day, and I have got my information this evening from the Custom House Authority. In answer to that question, what I am advised is this, that up to now there is no sign of the trade as a whole from Germany falling off. I do not say signs may not appear, but not so far.
I should like to say a word or two on the third point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, and that is the question of the Ruhr. I paid particular attention to the letter which he read out. It is natural
at a time like this that traders should take alarm. It may he that there will be trouble in coming to arrangements to facilitate trade movements from that district in the near future. I do not know, I think, probably. But at present we have certainly had no advice of any kind that I am able to trace—I cannot speak for the Board of Trade—that such things as are alluded to in that letter are, as a matter of fact, being done. The House may rest assured that it will be the most earnest endeavour of the Government, in all these matters, to do everything in their power to facilitate trade with the occupied districts, and to try, so far as they are able, to get over diffi-

culties which undoubtedly will be put in our way, and must be put in our way, owing to the troubled circumstances which prevail in that district at present. But I can hardly imagine that it is a reason to us, that because the French are now occupying the Ruhr district—an action the wisdom of which we have always questioned—we should therefore forego this very useful contribution to the revenues of our country which is being made in cash to-day by way of reparation from Germany.

Question put, "That the operation of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1D21, be suspended."

The House divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 142.

Division No. 66.]
AYES.
[11.55 p.m.


Adams, D.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Adamson. Rt. Hon. William
Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Varnon
Ritson. J.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Bonwick, A.
Herriotts, J.
Saklatvala, S.


Bowdler. W. A.
Hill, A.
Salter, Dr. A.


Brotherton, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buckle, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootie)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Snell, Harry


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Buxton. Charles (Accrington)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Sullivan, J.


Chappie, W. A.
Lawson, John James
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Charleton, H. C.
Leach, W.
Warne, G. H.


Darbishire, C. W.
Linfield, F. C.
Watson, W, M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col- D. (Rhondda)


Ede, James Chuter
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Weir, L. M.


Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Welsh, J. C.


Emlyn Jones, J. E. (Dorset. N.)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Whiteley, W.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Maxton, James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Middleton, G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Millar, J. D.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Muir, John W.



Groves, T.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
Mr. Gray and Captain Berkeley.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Clayton, G. C.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Apsley, Lord
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Cope, Major William
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Halstead, Major O.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Baird, Ht. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison, F. C.


Baldwin, Ht. Hon. Stanley
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Harvey, Major S. E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Barnston, Major Harry
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Herbert. Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Berry, Sir George
Duncan, C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Betterton, Henry B
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hopkins, John W. W.


Blundell, F. N.
Ednam, Viscount
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hume, G. H.


Brass, Captain W.
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bridgeinan, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Fawkes, Major F. H.
King, Capt. Kenry Douglas


Sruton Sir James
Formor-Hesketh, Major T.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lamb. J. O.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Butler, H. M (Leeds, North)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lorden. John William


Button, H. S.
Furness, G. J.
Lorimer, H. D.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Gaibraith, J. F. W.
Lougher, L.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)
Ganzoni, Sir John
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Maddocks, Henry
Peto, Basil E.
Sparkes, H. W.


Manville, Edward
Privett, F. J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Margesson, H. D. R.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Sturrock, J. Leng


Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Mercer, Colonel H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Sykes, Major-Gen.Sir Frederick H.


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Remer, J. R.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford. Henley)


Molloy, Major L. G S.
Rentoul, G. S.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. O.
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nail, Major Joseph
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Nesbitt, Robert C.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wells, S. R.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter)
Russell, William (Bolton)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Whitla, Sir William


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Winterton, Earl


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Wise, Frederick


O'Grady, Captain James
Shepperson, E. W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Shipwright, Captain O.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Paget, T. G.
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Singleton, J. E.



Pease, William Edwin
Skelton, A. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Penny, Frederick George
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Colonel Gibbs and Captain Hacking


Perkins, Colonel E. K.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve o'Clock.